INTERNATIONAL

OPPro
OCCUPATIONAL
PERSONALITY PROFILE
technical manual
c
ONTENTS
1

6
THEORETICAL OVERVIEW

THEORETICAL BASIS FOR OPP DIMENSIONS

DESCRIPTION OF THE OPP DIMENSIONS

THE PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES OF THE OPP

ADMINISTRATION INSTRUCTIONS

REFERENCES
2
LIST OF TABLES 3
1 Standardisation Sample Composition (age rounded up to nearest year)
2 OPPro Gender Differences
3 Age Effects on OPPro scores
4 A Comparison of Ethnic Group Scores with the Genesys Norm
5 OPPro scale internal consistencies & Item Total Correlations (ITCs)
6 OPPro scale Alpha & ITC’s for various standardisation samples.
7 OPPro Test-retest Reliability Over Two Different Time Periods
8 Product-moment Correlations between OPPro Sub-scales (n = 988)
9 Correlations between OPPro and 16PF Form A Factors
10 Correlations between OPPro and 16PF Form 5 Factors
11 Correlations between OPPro & 15FQ
12 Multiple Regressions predicting the OPPro from OPQ™ Factor 5 (N = 41)
13 Correlations Between OPPro & JTI
14 Correlations between OPPro dimensions, EPQR and I7 (n = 158)
15 Correlations Between the OPPro & NEO (N=107)
16 Correlations Between the OPPro & PPQ (N=144)
17 Correlations Between the OPPro & VMI (N=59)
18 Correlations Between the OPPro & MAPP (N=59)
19 Correlations Between OPPro & GSIV (N=375)
20 Correlations Between OPPro & OIP Work Needs (N=108)
21 Correlations Between OPPro & OIP Interests (N=108)
22 Correlations Between OPPro & VPI (N=108)
23 Correlations between OPPro Dimensions & External Criteria (n = 59)
24 Relationship between OPPro and Clerical Performance Criteria
25 Correlations between OPPro & Service Engineer Performance
26 Correlations Between OPPro & Printer Performance Criteria (N=70)
27 Correlations between OPPro/Reasoning & Telesales Performance Criteria
28 Correlations between OPPro & Retail Staff Performance
29 Correlations Between OPPro & Sales Consultant Performance
30 OPPro Correlations with Performance Ratings of Car Dealership Managers
31 Correlations between OPPro & Successful Applicant for Component Course
32 Correlations Between OPPro & Effective Sales Managers
33 TQI’s & TCI’s for a Number of Different Tests

OPQ™ is a trademark of Saville & Holdsworth Ltd.

4
1
THEORETICAL
OVERVIEW
A major reason for using
psychometric tests to aid selection
decisions is that they provide
information that cannot be obtained
easily in other ways. If such tests are
not used then what we know about
the applicant is limited to the
information that can be gleaned
from an application form or CV, an
1

4
THE ROLE OF PSYCHOMETRIC TESTS
IN PERSONNEL ASSESSMENT

MEASURING PERSONALITY

CONSTRUCTION OF THE OPP

CRITERIA FOR ITEM-

GENERATION AND ITEM SELECTION
interview and references. If we wish
to gain information about a person’s 5 ADMINISTRATION AND SCORING OF
specific aptitudes & abilities and THE OPP
about their personality, attitudes
and values then we have little option
but to use psychometric tests. In fact,
psychometric tests can do more than
simply provide additional
information about the applicant.
They can add a degree of reliability
and validity to the selection
procedure that it is impossible to
achieve in any other way. How they
do this is best addressed by
examining the limitations of the
information obtained through
interviews, application forms and
references and exploring how some
of these limitations can be overcome
by using psychometric tests.
 THE ROLE OF
PSYCHOMETRIC TESTS IN
6 PERSONNEL ASSESSMENT
While much useful information can
be gained from the interview, which
clearly has an important role in any
selection procedure, it does nonethe-
less suffer from a variety of
weaknesses. Perhaps the most
important of these is that the inter-
view as been shown to be a very
unreliable way to judge a person’s
character. This is because it is an
unstandardised assessment proce-
dure. That is to say, each interview
will be different from the last. This is
true even if the interviewer is
attempting to ask the same questions
and act in the same way with each
applicant. It is precisely this aspect
of the interview that is both its main
strength and its main weakness. The
interview enables us to probe each
applicant in depth and discover indi-
vidual strengths and weaknesses.
Unfortunately, the interview’s
unstandardised, idiosyncratic nature
makes it difficult to compare appli-
cants, as it provides no base line
against which to contrast intervie-
wees’ differing performances. In
addition, it is likely that different
interviewers may come to radically
different conclusions about the same
applicant. Applicants will respond
differently to different interviewers,
quite often saying very different
things to them. In addition, what any
one applicant might say will be
interpreted quite differently by each
interviewer. In such cases we have to
ask which interviewer has formed
the correct impression of the candi-
date? This is a question to which
there is no simple answer.
A further limitation of the inter-
view is that it only assesses the
candidate’s behaviour in one setting,
and with regard to a small number
of people. How the candidate might
act in different situations and with
different people (e.g. when dealing
with people on the shop floor) is not
assessed, and cannot be predicted
from an applicant’s interview perfor-
mance. Moreover, the interview
provides no reliable information
about the candidate’s aptitudes and
abilities. The most we can do is ask
the candidate about his strengths
and weaknesses, a procedure that
has obvious limitations. Thus the
range and reliability of the informa-
tion that can be gained through an
interview are limited.
There are similar limitations on
the range and usefulness of the infor-
mation that can be gained from
application forms or CV’s. While
work experience and qualifications
may be prerequisites for certain
occupations, in and of themselves
they do not determine whether a
person is likely to perform well or
badly. Experience and academic
achievement is not always a good
predictor of ability or future success.
While such information is important
it may not be sufficient on its own to
enable us to confidently choose
between applicants. Thus aptitude
and ability tests are likely to play a
significant role in the selection
process as they provide information
on a person’s potential and not just
 7
their achievements to date. Moreover, and with pre-defined groups (e.g.
application forms tell us little about successful vs. unsuccessful job
a person’s character. It is often a incumbents). In the case of personal-
candidate’s personality that will ity tests the test addresses the issue
make the difference between an of how the person characteristically
average and an outstanding perfor- behaves in a wide range of different
mance. This is particularly true situations and with different people.
when candidates have relatively Thus psychometric tests of personal-
similar records of achievement and ity, aptitude and ability tests provide
past performance. Therefore, person- a range of information that is not
ality tests can play a major role in easily and reliably assessed in other
assisting selection decisions. ways. Such information can fill
References do provide some useful important gaps which have not been
information but mainly for verifica- assessed by application forms, inter-
tion purposes. While past views and references. It can also raise
performance is undoubtedly a good questions that can later be directly
predictor of future performance addressed in the interview. It is for
references are often not good predic- this reason that psychometric tests
tors of past performance. If the name are increasingly being used in
of the referee is supplied by the personnel selection. Their use adds a
applicant, then it is likely that they degree of breadth to assessment deci-
have chosen someone they expect to sions which cannot be achieved in
speak highly of them. They will any other way.
probably have avoided supplying the
names of those who may have a less
positive view of their abilities.
Aptitude and ability tests, on the
other hand, give us an indication of
the applicant’s probable performance
under exam conditions. This is likely
to be a true reflection of the person’s
ability.
What advantages do psychometric
tests have over other forms of assess-
ment? The first advantage they have
is that they add a degree of reliability
to the selection procedure that
cannot be achieved without their use.
Test results can be represented
numerically making it easy both to
compare applicants with each other,
8 MEASURING PERSONALITY
Interest in the measurement of
psychological characteristics
(psychometrics) can be traced back
to the second world war. During the
war there was a great need to select
military personnel for air crew train-
ing which led to the development of
a number of psychometric tests both
here and in the United States. The
main interest at this time was in the
development of IQ tests, or tests of
mental ability as they used to be
called, rather than in the develop-
ment of personality tests. While the
psychological theory, trait theory,
which underlies personality testing
had been developed by Allport in the
1930’s it was some time before this
was used in an attempt to construct
personality measures. It was not
until after the Second World War
that such work came to fruition.
There were probably two main
factors responsible for the develop-
ment of personality tests. Firstly, the
development of electronic computers
made it possible to calculate the
statistics that form the basis of
psychometric testing on large
samples, with relative ease. While
much of the statistical theory which
underlies test construction had been
developed before the war it had been
almost impossible to perform these
complex analyses on sufficiently
large samples prior to the advent of
computers. Thus work in this area
burgeoned after the war, when many
of today’s tests were developed (e.g.
the 16PF, CPI, EPI etc.). The second
factor that awakened interest in
personality measurement was the
realisation that if psychologists were
to make similar advances in the
scientific understanding of human
behaviour, to those that natural
scientists had made in understanding
the physical world, then it would be
necessary to develop techniques for
measuring those psychological char-
acteristics that would enable us to
predict human behaviour. From
these two considerations theoretical
approaches to the measurement of
personality, and the relationship
between personality and behaviour,
were developed from Allport’s early
work. The most extensive of these
theories is probably that described
by Cattell (1965) in his book: The
Scientific Analysis of Personality.
Cattell’s book is particularly diffi-
cult to understand. It is full of
algebra, and in his attempt to
provide a complete theory of human
personality and motivation, he has
invented many new and abstruse
concepts (e.g. ergs, Q methodology
etc.). In practice, the basic principles
that underlie personality measure-
ment are not as complex as they
might first appear. A personality test
simply consists of a collection of
questions, or “items”, which assess
an individual’s characteristic ways of
thinking, feeling and acting in differ-
ent situations. It is important to note
however, contrary to some recent
suggestions, that there is no reason
these items should be transparent.
That is, items do not have to directly
ask a person how he typically
behaves (e.g. I am a warm, friendly
person). All that is needed for an
 9
item to work is for people to respond example having an average score on
to it in a consistent way. Thus good a particular trait, say assertiveness,
personality tests can be reliable, yet may better fit the demands of the job
contain items that are not transpar- than being either highly assertive or
ent. In the area of occupational highly unassertive. Average scores
selection and assessment it is in fact can describe a balanced and flexible
best not to use transparent items, position, where the person is capable
thus making it harder to fake test of displaying the strengths that are
results. found at both of the extreme ends of
Personality tests take items that the personality dimension. In the
measure different aspects of the case of a person who has average
same personality characteristic and levels of assertiveness for example,
combine them to form subscales or they are likely to strive to achieve a
dimensions. By asking questions balance between being task focused
which address many different facets and achieving results yet being sensi-
of a person’s character, personality tive to others’ needs and avoiding
questionnaires attempt to get a interpersonal conflicts.
broad picture of how the applicant
usually acts in different settings and
with different people (e.g. with
friends, at work, at formal social
engagements etc.). What psycholo-
gists mean when they talk about
personality, is an individual’s charac-
teristic way of thinking, feeling and
acting across a broad range of
settings. Thus when we say a person
is extraverted we mean that he is
sociable, lively, outgoing and
friendly: that he usually seeks
variety, change and excitement and
has a great need for others’ company.
Besides addressing those characteris-
tics which are extreme or
outstanding, personality tests also
assess those ways in which a person
is typical of a particular group.
In assessment and selection we are
often as interested to find that a
person is average on a certain trait as
we are to identify their most notable
or extreme characteristics. For
 CONSTRUCTION
bk OF THE OPP
The OPPro is a personality test
developed for use in industrial and
organisational settings. The test was
developed in the UK on a large
sample of applicants drawn from a
wide range of occupational groups.
The OPPro measures nine different
personality dimensions in addition to
the distortion scale. Each of the nine
dimensions measured by the OPPro
are bi-polar. That is to say high or
low scores on each dimension
measure opposite personality charac-
teristics (e.g. extraversion v
introversion, tough-minded v tender-
minded etc.). The personality
characteristics which are measured
by the OPPro have been selected for
two reasons. Firstly, for their rele-
vance to personnel assessment and
selection decisions, and secondly,
because of extensive research
evidence demonstrating their valid-
ity. Thus the test user can be
confident that the OPPro is measur-
ing meaningful aspects of the
candidate’s personality.
The personality scales measured
by the OPPro were designed to be as
short as possible while at the same
time achieving a high level of relia-
bility and construct validity. In
general these two demands run
counter to each other in that the
more items a test contains the more
reliable that test will usually be. In
addition the more varied the test
items are, the more likely it is that
the test will be measuring broad
personality constructs. However, if
items are fairly varied, and thus
measure broad constructs, more
items are typically required for the
test to reach acceptable levels of reli-
ability, than if the items are very
similar to each other. Thus there is a
need to balance the length of a test
against the need for it to be valid
and reliable. The OPPro attempts to
achieve an optimal balance between
these two conflicting demands,
seeking to be short and reliable, yet
measure broad, meaningful person-
ality constructs. For this reason we
chose to use a five-point response
scale rather than the more usual
three-point scale (i.e. strongly agree
to strongly disagree rather than true,
uncertain, false). Five-point scales
have the advantage of increasing
item variance with the result that
fewer items are needed to achieve the
same level of reliability.
CRITERIA FOR ITEM-
GENERATION AND ITEM
SELECTION bl
The principal aim in generating the
items was to achieve a balance
between adequate coverage of the
construct (breadth) whilst maintain-
ing acceptable levels of scale
cohesiveness (internal consistency)
and minimum overlap with other
scales (noise).
The above was operationalised
with the following criteria:
● Items would correlate substantially ● Wherever possible items were to
higher with the target, keyed scale be limited to a single principal
than any other. It was not consid- clause that was simple and unam-
ered acceptable to have the item to biguous for readers having
keyed scale correlation only reached a high school level of
marginally higher than the next education.
best item to non-keyed scale ● Items that correlated highly with
correlation as this would the social desirability scale were to
contribute to a complex structure be removed to minimise the likeli-
as defined by Barrett, Kline etc. hood of motivation distortion in
● Items should as far as possible be selection settings.
cross-culturally generalisable. All ● All gender specific pronouns and
items that referred to parochial or concepts were removed.
culturally specific activities,
concepts or behaviours not consid-
ered prevalent in other countries
or cultures were avoided.
 ADMINISTRATION AND
bm SCORING OF THE OPPro
The reliability of a test depends very
much on how it is administered and
scored. Detailed administration and
scoring instructions are provided in
this manual for the OPPro and it is
strongly recommended that these be
followed to the letter.
The OPPro is provided with
GeneSys® Integrated Assessment
Software. GeneSys® will administer
the OPPro and related aptitude
batteries or it will accept scores from
the answer-sheets when using the
tests in paper and pencil format. In
either case, GeneSys® will score the
test and will provide the user with a
selection of interpretative reports
and occupational groups to use as
the norm. Full instructions for
administering and scoring tests are
provided with the GeneSys®
manual.
COMPUTERISED TEST
INTERPRETATION
The Occupational Personality Profile
(OPPro) has been designed to be
administered and scored by computer.
As well as printing scaled scores for
each dimension GeneSys® integrated
assessment software provides a
detailed narrative report which inter-
prets the personality profile and
highlights the candidate’s major
strengths and weaknesses. In addition
to reporting the candidate’s scores on
each of the fifteen personality dimen-
sions measured by the OPPro
GeneSys® also has the facility to
print criterion scores for Belbin’s
team-roles and Holland’s career
themes. Given that it is not always
possible to administer a test by
computer the OPPro has an addi-
tional option which enables the test to
be administered in a ‘paper and
pencil’ format which is subsequently
scored by computer.
2
THEORETICAL
BASIS FOR OPP
DIMENSIONS
This section of the Occupational
Personality Profile (OPPro) User
Guide describes the theoretical basis
of the personality dimensions
measured by the questionnaire. As
was noted earlier the personality
traits which this test measures were
selected for two reasons. Firstly,
because of their relevance to personnel
1

5
ACCOMMODATING

DETAIL-CONSCIOUS

CYNICAL

EMOTIONAL

RESERVED
- ASSERTIVE

- TRUSTING
- FLEXIBLE

- PHLEGMATIC

- GREGARIOUS
selection and assessment decisions,
and secondly, because of the extensive 6 GENUINE - PERSUASIVE
research literature demonstrating that
these dimensions measure meaningful 7 COMPOSED - CONTESTING
and stable personality characteristics.
A thorough review of the research 8 OPTIMISTIC- PESSIMISTIC (INTERNAL
literature and discussions with many - EXTERNAL LOCUS OF CONTROL)
personnel professionals led us to
develop the nine scales which form the 9 ABSTRACT - PRAGMATIC
OPPro. Thus the empirical support for
the theoretical constructs which the 10 THE DISTORTION SCALE (SOCIAL
OPPro measures is large and we CONFORMITY)
believe that each of these personality
factors are salient to a wide range of
selection decisions. A brief summary of
the research evidence which supports
these dimensions is presented below.
bo THE NINE SCALES OF OPP
ACCOMMODATING –
ASSERTIVE
Many psychologists have considered
dominance or assertiveness to be an
important personality characteristic
(McDougall 1932, Guilford 1958,
Cattell 1965). Moreover the impor-
tance of this trait is clearly supported
by our everyday experience. We have
all made the observation that some
people find it much easier to assert
themselves, and get what they want,
than others. For some their lack of
assertiveness may be such a problem
that it will cause them to comply
with others, even if this runs counter
to their own needs, simply because
they are unable to say no.
Furthermore, our everyday experi-
ence also indicates the importance of
assertiveness at work. In organisa-
tional settings a high level of
assertiveness will form the basis of
an authoritarian, task-orientated
leadership style, with low levels of
assertiveness forming the basis of a
democratic, person-centred style.
These are the two leadership styles
which were first identified by Bales
(1958) and have since formed the
basis of most leadership research.
Given the relevance of this personal-
ity dimension to occupational
assessment, and its clear psychologi-
cal importance, it has been included
in the OPPro.
1 2
DETAIL-CONSCIOUS – FLEXIBLE
This personality dimension has a
long and distinguished history in
psychology. The first person to iden-
tify this trait was Sigmund Freud
who termed it the anal, or obses-
sional personality (see Kline, 1968).
While Freud’s suggestion that a
psychologically rigid, obsessional
character is due to fixation at the
anal stage of psycho-sexual develop-
ment is now questioned by most
psychologists. Nonetheless, many
accept the existence of this important
personality trait. Not only is it
similar to the well documented
notion of the authoritarian personal-
ity (Adorno et al 1950) but with its
emphasis on impulse control it is
similar in many ways to Factor G in
the 16PF. More importantly Kline
(1968) has gone on to develop a
personality scale to measure this
characteristic. Working from the
ideas originally expounded by Freud
he has shown that such people are
typically fastidious in their attention
to detail. Rigidly adhering to set
procedures and rules they are gener-
ally well organised individuals who
support traditional values and
dislike innovation and change.
Happy to attend to fine detail and
follow set systems and procedures
this personality dimension is clearly
important for many occupations.

CYNICAL –TRUSTING
This dimension has been developed
from the work of Christie and Geis
(1970) who over a number of years
have explored the so called
Machiavellian personality.
Examining the strategies which
Machiavelli suggests that successful
politicians should employ, they have
developed a personality question-
naire which assesses a cynical,
suspicious and fundamentally scepti-
cal attitude to human relationships.
Lacking faith in other people’s
honesty and trustworthiness,
Machiavellians believe that it is
important to act in an expedient or
manipulative way, expecting that
other people will try to take advan-
tage of them if they give them the
chance. Some have suggested that
this cynicism may be based on early
childhood experiences, with the
Machiavellian person having been
repeatedly let down by important
others. Conversely it may simply be
a realistic response to the demands of
a challenging world. Either way
Machiavellians are not inclined to be
gullible or easily misled, always
questioning others’ motives and
wondering what their real intentions
may be. With its emphasis on ‘politi-
cal’ expediency, this dimension has
been included in the OPPro.
3 4
EMOTIONAL –PHLEGMATIC
Our every day experience tells us
that while most people experience
some anxiety in certain situations
there are some people who consis-
tently experience high levels of
anxiety in a broad range of settings.
Similarly there are other people who
rarely experience mood swings,
remaining calm and constant across
situations. Thus we might argue that
anxiety, or the lack of it, is a person-
ality trait. A considerable amount of
research exists to support this
hypothesis. Eysenck & Eysenck
(1969) has shown that anxiety, or
neuroticism, is a stable personality
characteristic. He not only argues
that it is one of the most important
personality factors, but also suggests
that it might have a biological basis.
Its clear importance as a personality
dimension is demonstrated by the
number of psychologists who have
constructed scales to measure this
factor, amongst them Eysenck
(Eysenck & Eysenck, 1969), Cattell
(1965) and Thurstone (1950). With
its clear implications for the way
people deal with stress, and for their
likely degree of emotional resilience,
it would have been a major omission
not to have included this factor in
the OPPro.
bp
RESERVED –GREGARIOUS
Any observation of friends and
acquaintances will tell us that some
people have a much greater need for
company than do others. In the most
extreme case such people may
actively dislike being on their own
and, greatly needing others’ affec-
tion, may have difficulty resisting
group pressure. Thus it is not
surprising that psychologists have
recognised the importance of this
personality dimension for some time.
In the early part of this century
McDougall (1932) wrote about the
gregarious instinct and more recently
Maslow (1970) has suggested that
‘the need for affiliation’ is one of the
most basic human motives.
Considerable research in the area of
personality has supported these
hypotheses, demonstrating that
gregariousness is one of the most
important and stable aspects of the
human character. This idea is
contained in Eysenck’s (Eysenck &
Eysenck, 1969) concept of extraver-
sion and in Cattell’s 16PF the
sociability dimensions form one of
the major factor clusters. With its
clear relevance to many occupations,
the failure to include such a dimen-
sion in the OPPro would have been a
major omission.
5
bq
GENUINE –PERSUASIVE
This dimension has been derived
from Snyder’s (1979) concept of
self-monitoring. The idea behind this
notion is simply that people tend to
base their behaviour either upon the
demands of the situation or upon
their own attitudes and opinions.
Snyder (1979) has developed a
questionnaire to measure this
concept and has termed those people
who generally base their behaviour
upon the demands of the situation as
high self-monitors. Such people are
good actors and are generally
persuasive. Being sensitive to social
cues and expectations their behav-
iour will vary greatly between
situations. Low self-monitors by
contrast are not very responsive to
the demands of the setting and their
behaviour tends to be consistent
across different situations. Sincere
and open, their behaviour is usually
a reflection of their own attitudes
and opinions. Consequently they
may find it difficult to hide their true
feelings and beliefs from others,
possibly lacking tact and diplomacy
in some situations. With its clear
implications for sales positions and
all those occupations which require
tact and diplomacy it was felt that
this recently developed personality
dimension should be included in the
OPPro because of its relevance to
many selection decisions.
6 7
COMPOSED –CONTESTING
This dimension has been derived
from work on the coronary prone
personality. Considerable evidence
now exists demonstrating that people
who are prone to stress related
health problems have a particularly
tense, competitive and hard driving
approach to work. Jenkins et al
(1979) have termed this personality
syndrome Coronary Type A
Behaviour. This is characterised by a
challenging, tense approach towards
work which expresses itself most
clearly in the inability to believe that
others will meet your own high stan-
dards. While such an approach may
superficially appear to be associated
with success at work, on closer
inspection such a personality orien-
tation may at times be self defeating.
With their inability to delegate and
tendency to take on more work than
they can handle, Type A people may,
in the long run, fail to be as effective
as someone who is more composed in
their working style.

OPTIMISTIC –PESSIMISTIC
(INTERNAL –EXTERNAL LOCUS
OF CONTROL)
This dimension has been developed
from the work of Rotter (1966) who
coined the term Locus of Control to
describe people’s expectations that
their actions determine the outcome
of events. The idea behind this
dimension is simply that while some
people feel in control of the course
their life is taking, believing that
their actions will determine what
happens to them, others feel that
their lives are fundamentally out of
their control and that their actions
will have no influence on the
outcome of events. Research has
demonstrated that these expectations
have many implications for behav-
iour. For example, people who
believe that their actions will deter-
mine the outcome of events are more
likely to persevere after an initial
failure, anticipating future success.
Moreover, they approach life in a
more positive, optimistic way and
are less likely to suffer from depres-
sion. In recent years the concept of
locus of control has received a
considerable amount of research
attention, and although it is a rela-
tively new concept in personality
theory it is increasingly felt to be an
important one. With its clear impli-
cations for self-motivation it was felt
that it was important to include this
personality dimension in the OPPro.
8 9
ABSTRACT –PRAGMATIC
This dimension has its origin in
Jung’s (1921) concept of Thinking-
Introversion versus
Thinking-Extraversion; a concept
which was latter developed by Caine
et al.(1981). Jung argued that
Thinking-Introverts were inner-
directed in their thinking style and
would thus be abstract, intellectual,
aesthetically sensitive people. The
stereotypical artist, or academic,
they are inclined to be creative and
imaginative, yet may often be so
involved in thought that they give
little weight to practical realities.
Thinking-Extraverts by comparison
have an outer directed thinking style.
Practical and pragmatic, Jung char-
acterised such people as the
stereotypical engineer, who always
asks whether things work rather
than why they work, as Thinking-
Extraverts. Having little time for
theorising and lacking aesthetic
sensitivity they will prefer to focus on
concrete, practical matters and may
at times even be a little ‘black and
white’ in their thinking style. With its
emphasis on a theoretical, abstract
approach to problems versus a prac-
tical, pragmatic approach, and its
concern with artistic and aesthetic
sensitivity, this dimension will be
relevant to many selection decisions.
br
THE DISTORTION SCALE
(SOCIAL CONFORMITY)
The distortion scale was developed
from the work of Crowne and
Marlow (1964). After extensively
exploring the factors which influence
the image people choose to present of
themselves to others, these authors
invented the concept of the social
desirability motive. They suggest
that people who have high levels of
social desirability have a strong need
to seek social approval.
Consequently they attempt to
present an unrealistically positive
image of themselves to others, in
order to gain their approval. That is
to say, they do not admit to having
any of the weaknesses or foibles
which make us human. Instead they
are motivated to pretend to be
paragons of virtue having no flaws or
defects of character, however small.
Crowne and Marlow (1964) have
developed a questionnaire which
measures social desirability and this
has subsequently formed the basis of
the distortion scales which are used
in most modern personality ques-
tionnaires (e.g. the OPQ† series of
tests). Simply put, these scales
measure a person’s desire to present
an unrealistically positive picture of
themselves and as such measure
motivational distortion.
† OPQ is a registered trademark of SHL
bs
3 DESCRIPTION OF THE
OPP DIMENSIONS
The personality dimensions which
are measured by the OPPro are
described on the following pages.
These descriptions only indicate the
most salient characteristics of people
who score at the extreme ends of
each dimension and do not provide
any interpretation of the overall
personality profile. The significance
1

5
ACCOMMODATING

DETAIL-CONSCIOUS

CYNICAL

EMOTIONAL

RESERVED
– ASSERTIVE

– TRUSTING
– FLEXIBLE

– PHLEGMATIC

– GREGARIOUS
of each dimension will be modified
for those candidates whose scores are 6 GENUINE – PERSUASIVE
less extreme, and to this end the user
is referred to the detailed narrative 7 COMPOSED – CONTESTING
report which is produced by the
GeneSys® Integrated Assessment 8 OPTIMISTIC – PESSIMISTIC
Software System.
In addition, interactions between 9 ABSTRACT – PRAGMATIC
these dimensions will significantly
modify the meaning of each
individual factor. As such, no
personality dimension should be
interpreted in isolation, but its
meaning should always be
considered in the context of a
candidate’s total personality profile.
Such interactions are dealt with in
the narrative report which is
produced by GeneSys®.
 ACCOMMODATING –
ck ASSERTIVE
ACCOMMODATING
Empathic
People orientated
Accepting
Sensitive to people’s feelings
Avoid confrontation
Low scorers are likely to be sensi-
tive to others’ needs and will usually
avoid criticising other people for fear
of upsetting them. Sensitive and
unassuming, they are likely to have
difficulty in being forceful and
assertive with colleagues and may
prefer to go along with people rather
than confront them. Consequently
they may find it difficult to supervise
subordinates’ work as they will often
place their colleagues’ needs above
the demands of the task. They will
dislike having to discipline juniors
and may find it difficult to ensure
that work is completed on time.
Finding it easy to empathise with
others and understand their perspec-
tives, they are likely to be good
listeners. Colleagues will find it easy
to discuss their problems with them,
feeling that they understand. Their
interpersonal sensitivity and aware-
ness of others’ needs places them in a
good position to help smooth over
interpersonal conflicts which are
threatening to damage working rela-
tionships.
ASSERTIVE
Dominant
Task orientated
Challenging
Unconcerned about others’
feelings
Confrontative
High scorers are inclined to be
forceful and brash. Knowing their
own mind they will push others to
agree with their point of view and
will often get their own way. Not
overly concerned about upsetting
other people they may at times be
confrontative and pushy. Rather
insensitive to others’ feelings, they
will put the demands of the task
above the personal needs of friends
and colleagues. Concerned with
getting results, they may at times
upset people while trying to achieve
their own ends. If they feel that
something needs to be said they will
usually say it, even if this may upset
people. Given their forthright
approach and tendency to be task
orientated, they will be good at
making sure that things get done. If,
however, they are to avoid creating
discord within the organisation they
may need to temper their character-
istically assertive style with a greater
sensitivity to others’ feelings.
Inclined to be overly critical and to
make smart sarcastic comments at
others’ expense, they are not good
listeners and colleagues are not likely
to take their problems to them.
DETAIL-CONSCIOUS –
FLEXIBLE
DETAIL-CONSCIOUS
Deliberating
Controlled
Rigid
Enjoy attending to detail
Conscientious
Low scorers are controlled and
punctilious in their dealings with
others, greatly respecting authority
and the status quo. They believe it is
important to follow accepted proce-
dures and conventions and at times
others may see them as somewhat
obsessional and pedantic. By nature
extremely tidy and meticulous in
everything they do, they have a fine
eye for detail. Happy to rigidly
follow set procedures and systems,
and work within well defined struc-
tures, they always ensure that things
are done in a correct and proper way.
Extremely conservative by nature,
they are inclined to distrust the new
and radical in favour of the tried and
tested. Being very traditional they
dislike change which they are likely
to try to resist. Believing that it is
important to plan well ahead, they
are inclined to prevaricate and may
have difficulty in situations which
require decisive action. Respectful of
authority and traditional values, and
inclined to be concerned about
status, they are always careful to act
in a correct and proper way. Having
a strong sense of self-discipline, they
will persevere even with the most
boring, repetitive tasks and can be
trusted to see a project through to
the end.
cl
FLEXIBLE
Spontaneous
Lack self-discipline and
self-control
Flexible
Dislike attending to detail
Disregard rules and obligations
High scorers are spontaneous and
lacking self-control they often act in
an unplanned, impromptu way.
Disinclined to plan ahead, they tend
to take life as it comes.
Extemporaneous and casual in their
attitude and not having a rigid,
disciplined nature, they are inclined
to be radical and unconventional.
They will dislike having to adhere to
set rules and procedures and will
have difficulty persevering with
tedious, repetitious tasks. Moreover,
they do not like attending to detail
and may be prone to make careless
mistakes. Not in the least fastidious
or fussy, they are not concerned with
formalities or etiquette. Some people
may see them as overly casual or
informal in their attitude while
others may find that their informal-
ity makes them feel at ease. Flexible
and adaptable in their thinking style
they are attracted by new and innov-
ative ideas. Not in the least
conservative, they will not cling to
the past but instead will embrace the
future as providing new and exciting
opportunities.
cm CYNICAL – TRUSTING
CYNICAL
Suspicious
Cynical
Inclined to question others motives
Sceptical
May distrust other people
Low scorers are suspicious and
sceptical. Having a fundamentally
cynical view of human nature, they
believe that most people are only
motivated by self-interest.
Consequently they tend to question
others’ motives and not take people
at face value. They are generally
cautious and guarded in their deal-
ings with colleagues as they
anticipate that they will take advan-
tage of them if they give them the
chance. Not inclined to be the least
philanthropic or benevolent, they
expect that people will only help if
they stand to gain something for
themselves by doing so. Their lack of
faith in other people may in the most
extreme cases prompt them to para-
noia. Always wary and circumspect
in their dealings with others, they
will only let their guard down with
the most intimate of friends. Rarely
revealing their true motives and aims
they will ‘play their cards close their
chest’. Sceptical and lacking faith in
others’ veracity they will try to avoid
relying on colleagues. Only after they
have put friends and colleagues to
the test will they be prepared to trust
them. Consequently people may find
it difficult to get close to them.
TRUSTING
Trusting
Philanthropic
Takes people at face value
Have faith in others’ honesty
Sometimes a little credulous
High scorers have an honest and
trusting nature. Believing that people
are basically sincere and good-
hearted, they will expect others to be
reliable and trustworthy and will
take people at face value. While
some may view their attitude as
unduly credulous or naïve, it is
simply that they see no reason why
they should not trust other people.
Having a basic faith in human
nature they will not usually question
other people’s motives, not expecting
them to be dishonest. Philanthropic
and charitable, they will try to help
friends and colleagues when possi-
ble, expecting others to help them
when they are in need. Usually oblig-
ing and considerate towards others,
they will expect those around them
to be dependable. If people take
advantage of their trust and good
will, or let them down, they are
likely to feel hurt, seeing such behav-
iour as a personal insult.
Straightforward and open in their
dealings with other people, they will
have to be repeatedly let down
before their faith in human nature is
shaken and they come to doubt
others’ sincerity.
EMOTIONAL – PHLEGMATIC
EMOTIONAL
Prone to worry
Moody
Inclined to be anxious in
social settings
Troubled by feelings of anxiety
and self-doubt
Easily take offence
Low scorers are moody and
emotional. Prone to suffer from feel-
ings of anxiety and self doubt, they
may have difficulty coping under
pressure. Quick to take offence, they
will not find it easy to accept
constructive criticism in the spirit in
which it was meant. Instead, they are
likely to take such criticism as a
personal attack, unless it is cast in
the most sensitive and delicate of
ways. Temperamental and prone to
emotional outbursts, they are likely
to be touchy and somewhat volatile.
They may react to demanding and
stressful situations in an unpre-
dictable, emotional way and will not
cope well under pressure. Labile and
inclined to mood swings, they will at
times feel full of energy and on other
occasions feel flat and lifeless for no
obvious reason. Their tendency to
worry about the future and doubt
their own abilities may however
motivate them to work hard in order
to forestall anticipated problems and
fears.
cn
PHLEGMATIC
Self-assured
Emotionally stable
Socially confident
Secure
Resilient
High scorers are emotionally stable
and have a mature outlook on life.
They are not easily upset and take
most things in their stride.
Consequently they will be able to
accept constructive criticism without
seeing it as a personal attack. Not
inclined to emotional outbursts, they
are stable, self-assured and secure.
Coping well under pressure, they will
usually have sufficient energy and
enthusiasm to deal effectively with
demanding situations. Not prone to
feelings of self-doubt or insecurity,
they will not worry unduly about
past failures or future events. Self-
confident and secure, they will not
suffer from feelings of anxiety or
panic. Resilient and not prone to
violent mood swings, they will be
more than able to meet life’s
demands. Well anchored and stead-
fast, and not in the least
temperamental, some people may see
them as rather lacking in emotion.
co RESERVED – GREGARIOUS
RESERVED
Reserved
Cool and introspective
Prefers to work alone
Enjoy own company
Aloof and detached
Low scorers are reserved and intro-
spective and have little need for the
company of others. They will be reti-
cent when talking to strangers and,
happy to work on their own, they
will try to avoid jobs which require
continually meeting new people.
Lacking social confidence they are
likely to dislike having to talk to
large groups of people. While they
may at first sight appear reserved
and cool, even aloof, they are not
‘stand-offish’. It is simply that they
require time to get to know new
people. With close friends they can
be as warm and socially involved as
anyone. Given their natural reserve
they are likely to slip into the back-
ground at social events and they may
have difficulty mingling with a large
group of strangers. Inclined to ‘take
a back seat’ in meetings, they may
need others to bring them out of
themselves before they can show
their full potential. Preferring the
company of one or two close friends
to that of a crowd, they are likely to
focus on developing a few close rela-
tionships rather than many
acquaintances.
GREGARIOUS
Outgoing and sociable
Lively and talkative
Enjoy working with others
High need for affiliation
Warm and participating
High scorers are sociable and
outgoing. Having a strong need for
others’ company they will want to be
surrounded by warm, supportive
friends and colleagues. They are
likely to become somewhat tense and
restless if they have to be on their
own for long periods of time.
Consequently they will seek out
occupations which bring them into
regular contact with other people.
Lively and talkative, they are likely
to take centre stage and may unwit-
tingly over-shadow their more
reticent colleagues. Socially bold,
they will come to the fore at meet-
ings and social events. Not feeling
the least inhibited on such occasions,
they will freely strike up conversa-
tions with strangers. Warm and
socially uninhibited they will be
interested in others and consequently
they are likely to be popular. Their
friends will be very important to
them and they will devote much time
to developing and maintaining
personal relationships. Because of
their strong need to belong they may,
in the most extreme cases, have some
difficulty functioning independently
from group norms and expectations.
GENUINE – PERSUASIVE
GENUINE
Base behaviour on own
feelings and attitudes
Forthright
Honest and open
Genuine and sincere
May lack tact and diplomacy
Low scorers are genuine and open in
their dealings with others. Unable to
hide their true feelings, they cannot
easily convince people of views which
they do not personally believe in.
Basing their behaviour upon their
own attitudes and opinions, and
having little awareness of the
demands of the situation, they will
find it difficult to deal with others in
an expedient and calculating way.
They will find it hard to hide the
truth from friends and colleagues who
are likely to see through them.
Lacking social awareness, they may
make the occasional faux pas. Their
behaviour tends to be an expression
of their true attitudes and opinions
and consequently, is fairly consistent
across different social settings. Others
will see them as sincere and genuine,
feeling that they know where they
stand with them. Not in the least
shrewd or astute in their dealings with
colleagues, they may at times lack
tact and diplomacy. Being somewhat
insensitive to social expectations, they
are not likely to be successful in situa-
tions which require a degree of tact or
calculated behaviour.
cp
PERSUASIVE
Behaviour is determined by the
demands of the situation
Diplomatic
Manipulative and expedient
Shrewd and calculating
Sensitive to ‘political’ issues
High scorers tend to be good actors
and are likely to be persuasive and
influential speakers. Acutely aware
of the demands of the situation, they
will tailor what they say so as to take
advantage of others’ needs and
expectations. Able to convince
people of a particular point of view
even if they do not believe it them-
selves, they are likely to be socially
skilled and somewhat calculating.
Able to hide their true feelings, they
will act in a shrewd and expedient
way when they deem it necessary.
Sensitive to the demands of the situ-
ation and to others’ expectations,
their behaviour is likely to vary
greatly from situation to situation. In
the most extreme case their
colleagues may wonder what their
own views really are. Socially astute,
they will be successful in occupations
which call for a high degree of tact
and diplomacy. Able to laugh
convincingly at others’ jokes, even if
they are not funny, more perceptive
colleagues may doubt their sincerity.
Almost social chameleons, others
may view them as Machiavellian or
manipulative in their dealings with
colleagues. They, however, are likely
simply to see themselves as shrewd
game players.
cq COMPOSED – CONTESTING
COMPOSED
Calm and composed
Able to delegate
Keep work separate from
home life
Able to unwind and relax
Tolerant
Able to distance themselves
from work pressures
Low scorers are generally calm and
composed with regard to work. They
dislike having to continually meet
close deadlines, preferring instead to
have time to take things at a steady
pace. They do not have an aggres-
sive, competitive attitude towards
work and, being tolerant of others,
are not likely to be irritated by slow
or indecisive people. Seeing the
benefits which are to be gained by
not rushing to complete work within
excessively short deadlines, they will
dislike being put under pressure.
They like to keep their work separate
from their social life and enjoy
having free time in which to relax.
Not tense and hard driving, they are
happy to use their free time simply
to unwind, having no need to rush
around achieving self-imposed goals.
Not having a particularly challeng-
ing and competitive attitude towards
work, they will give colleagues credit
where it is due. Believing that others
are as capable as themselves, they
will be happy to delegate work.
Lacking a hard-driven, competitive
edge, they will not be particularly
challenging or contesting with
colleagues.
CONTESTING
Ambitious and competitive
May take on too much work
Work long hours
Have difficulty relaxing
Impatient
May be prone to stress related
illnesses
High scorers are tense and compet-
itive having an ambitious and
challenging approach towards work.
Expecting things to be done
instantly, they are likely to be intol-
erant of slow, indecisive people.
Moreover, their competitive nature
may cause them to become irritated
with people who get in their way.
They often work long hours, under
extreme pressure, and will have diffi-
culty divorcing themselves from their
work. Believing themselves to be
indispensable, they may take on
more work than they can manage.
Often rushing to meet deadlines,
they are likely to believe that others
will not produce work which meets
their own high standards.
Consequently they may find it diffi-
cult to delegate tasks. They hate to
be kept waiting and are prone to be
impatient. They are likely to have
difficulty separating their work form
their personal life and will often take
work home with them. Unable to put
their work behind them when they
get home they are likely to have
difficulty relaxing. In the most
extreme cases they may have so
much difficulty separating them-
selves from their work that they will
not know what to do with their time
if they are not working.
OPTIMISTIC – PESSIMISTIC
OPTIMISTIC
Achieving and striving
Believe their own actions
determine outcomes
Positive approach to set-backs
Optimistic
Believe they are in control of
their own destiny
Low scorers have a fundamental
faith in their own ability to deter-
mine the course their life takes. As a
consequence they generally approach
problems in a constructive and opti-
mistic way. Actively striving to
overcome difficulties, they will antic-
ipate success in most things.
However, at times their optimism
may be a little misplaced. They are
likely to persevere in the face of
failure, having learnt from past
experience that they can usually find
a solution to their problems. Taking
set-backs as a challenge, they will
strive to overcome them. Others are
likely to respect their positive
approach to problems and to be
given confidence by their optimism.
They may, however, continue to
struggle to overcome a problem,
unable to accept defeat, when it
would have been wiser to have given
up, investing their energies else-
where. Taking charge of their life
and working to actively shape their
future, they are likely to believe that
effort usually pays off in the end.
cr
PESSIMISTIC
Resigned
Prone to feelings of helplessness
Inclined to pessimism
Fatalistic
Have little faith in their ability
to determine events
High scorers tend to be pessimistic
and may be inclined to occasional
bouts of depression. Not believing
that their actions will shape future
events, they may feel resigned and
helpless when things go wrong.
Consequently they are likely to give
up at the first sign of failure and may
need much support and encourage-
ment if they are to be persuaded to
persevere. In the most extreme case
their expectation of failure may even
stop them from initiating action. They
should nonetheless be capable of
taking a fairly positive approach
towards life when things are going
well, although this may quickly turn
into resigned pessimism if things go
wrong. Inclined to accept their lot
rather than strive to change their
circumstances they may appear some-
what fatalistic. Lacking a basic belief
in their own ability to shape the
course their life takes, they are likely
to feel helpless in the face of what
they may see as the enormity of life’s
problems. For many this lack of faith
in their own ability to control events
may be based on past experiences.
Consequently even when things are
going well they may be inclined to
remember the past and wonder what
is likely to go wrong next.
cs ABSTRACT – PRAGMATIC
ABSTRACT PRAGMATIC

Imaginative Down to earth and concrete

Aesthetically sensitive Not interested in artistic matters
Creative and artistic Practical and realistic
Abstract and intellectual Pragmatic
Have a theoretical orientation More concerned with
‘how than why’

Low scorers have an abstract,
theoretical approach to problems.
More concerned with their own
thoughts and designs than with
practical realities, they will want to
have the ideas and let others put
them into practice. In the most
extreme case they may become so
interested in the theoretical nuances
of a problem that they lose sight of
their overall goal. Greatly interested
in the arts and other creative activi-
ties, they will have a strong sense of
aesthetics and will appreciate good
design. Having an intellectual orien-
tation, they will enjoy thinking
through a problem, particularly if
they have the freedom to approach it
in an innovative and radical way.
Not always giving sufficient regard
to practical matters, they will
quickly become engrossed in the
creative aspects of a task. Greatly
appreciating the arts, and believing
that they enrich life, they will enjoy
expressing their creativity.
Aesthetically sensitive, they will have
a strong sense of the beauty which
surrounds them.
High scorers are realistic and prag-
matic in their approach to problems.
They are not interested in artistic,
creative activities and have little
awareness of aesthetic issues.
Consequently they are likely to view
the arts as a waste of time and may
be disparaging of such things, not
appreciating the finer points of
design. Approaching problems in a
very ‘black and white’ way, they are
likely to actively avoid jobs which
require creativity, imagination and
innovation. Having little time for the
theoretical nuances of a problem,
their strengths lie more in their
ability to bring a realistic, practical
approach to problem solving. Seeing
theorising as a waste of time, others
will appreciate their tendency to
focus on the concrete aspects of a
task. More interested in how to make
things work, rather than in trying to
understand why things work as they
do, they are likely to stop others
from following an impractical course
of action. Theirs will be the voice
which will always be heard asking,
but will it work in practice?

NOTE This dimension is a measure of cognitive style and does not assess
the candidate’s level of intellectual functioning. While this dimension will
indicate whether a person has an abstract or concrete intellectual orienta-
tion, that is to say prefers practical or creative activities, it does not indicate
the quality of the candidate’s work. To this end it is necessary to assess the
candidate’s aptitudes and abilities.
4 THE PSYCHOMETRIC
PROPERTIES
OF THE OPP
This chapter will present details
concerning the psychometric
properties of the Occupational
Personality Profile. The aim will be
to show that the OPPro fulfils various
technical requirements, in the areas
of standardisation, reliability and
validity, which ensure the
psychometric soundness of the test.
1

4
INTRODUCTION

STANDARDISATION PROCEDURES AND

NORMATIVE DATA

OPP GENDER DIFFERENCES

AGE AND OPP

5 ETHNIC ORIGIN AND OPP

6 RELIABILITY

7 CONSTRUCT VALIDITY

8 CRITERION VALIDITY

9 OPP TEST QUALITY ANALYSIS

dk INTRODUCTION
standardisation : normative
Normative data allows us to
compare an individual’s score on a
standardised scale against the
typical score obtained from a clearly
identifiable, homogeneous group of
people.
RELIABILITY
The property of a measurement
which assesses the extent to which
variation in measurement is due to
true differences between people on
the trait being measured, or to
measurement error.
In order to provide meaningful
interpretations, the OPPro was stan-
dardised against a number of
relevant groups. The constituent
samples which make up the OPPro
norm base are fully described later.
Standardisation ensures that the
measurements obtained from a test
can be meaningfully interpreted in
the context of a relevant distribution
of scores. Another important techni-
cal requirement for a
psychometrically sound test is that
the measurements obtained from
that test should be reliable.
Reliability is generally assessed
using two specific measures, one
related to the stability of scale scores
over time, the other concerned with
the internal consistency, or homo-
geneity of the constituent items that
form a scale score.
reliability : stability
Also known as test-retest reliability,
an assessment is made of the similar-
ity of scores on a particular scale
over two or more test occasions. The
occasions may be a few hours, days,
months or years apart. Normally
Pearson correlation coefficients are
used to quantify the similarity
between the scale scores over the two
or more occasions.
Stability coefficients provide an
important indicator of a test’s likely
usefulness of measurement. If these
coefficients are low (< approx. 0.6)
then it is suggestive that either the
behaviours/attitudes being measured
are volatile or situationally specific,
or that over the duration of the retest
interval, situational events have
made the content of the scale irrele-
vant or obsolete. Of course, the
duration of the retest interval
provides some clue as to which effect
may be causing the unreliability of
measurement. However, the second
measure of a scale’s reliability also
provides valuable information as to
why a scale may have a low stability
coefficient. The most common
measure of internal consistency is
Cronbach’s Alpha. If the items on a
scale have high inter-correlations
with each other, and with the total
scale score, then coefficient alpha
will be high. Thus a high coefficient
alpha indicates that the items on the
scale are measuring very much the
same thing, while a low alpha would
be suggestive of either scale items
measuring different attributes or the
presence of error.
reliability : internal consistency
Also known as scale homogeneity, an
assessment is made of the ability of
the items in a scale to measure the
same construct or trait. That is, a
parameter can be computed that
indexes how well the items in a scale
contribute to the overall measure-
ment denoted by the scale score. A
scale is said to be internally consis-
tent if all the constituent item
responses are shown to be positively
associated with their scale score.
The fact that a test has high inter-
nal consistency & stability
coefficients only guarantees that it is
measuring something consistently. It

provides no guarantee that the test is
actually measuring what it purports
to measure, nor that the test will
prove useful in a particular situation.
Questions concerning what a test
actually measures and its relevance
in a particular situation are dealt
with by looking at the test’s validity.
Reliability is generally investigated
before validity, as the reliability of a
test places an upper limit on a test’s
validity. It can be mathematically
demonstrated that a validity coeffi-
cient for a particular test can not
exceed that test’s reliability coeffi-
cient.
VALIDITY
The ability of a scale score to reflect
what that scale is intended to
measure. Kline’s (1993) definition is
‘A test is said to be valid if it
measures what it claims to measure’.
Validation studies of a test investi-
gate the soundness and relevance of
a proposed interpretation of that
test. Two key areas of validation are
known as criterion validity and
construct validity.
validity : criterion validity
Criterion validity involves translat-
ing a score on a particular test into a
prediction concerning what could be
expected if another variable was
observed.
The criterion validity of a test is
provided by demonstrating that
scores on the test relate in some
meaningful way to an external crite-
rion. Criterion validity comes in two
forms – predictive & concurrent.
Predictive validity assesses whether a
test is capable of predicting an
agreed criterion which will be avail-
able at some future time – e.g. can a
test predict the likelihood of someone
successfully completing a training
dl
course. Concurrent validity assesses
whether the scores on a test can be
used to predict a criterion measure
which is available at the time of the
test – e.g. can a test predict current
job performance?
validity : construct validity
Construct validity assesses whether
the characteristic which a test is
actually measuring is psychologi-
cally meaningful and consistent with
the test’s definition.
The construct validity of a test is
often assessed by demonstrating that
the scores from the test are consis-
tent with those from other major
tests which measure similar
constructs and are dissimilar to
scores on tests which measure differ-
ent constructs. Construct validation
should ideally go beyond simply
correlating tests with each other as
this could prove to be circular. Often
self and peer ratings are correlated
with tests scores as this provides
non-test evidence about the sound-
ness of the scales. Essentially,
construct validation is demonstrated
when a large number of hypotheses
relating to the associated real world
behaviours are confirmed.
 STANDARDISATION
PROCEDURES AND
dm NORMATIVE DATA
The standardisation sample is based on 1900+ UK adults, almost equally
distributed between males and females. This ensures that the user of the
OPPro can be confident that the norm comparison is a good representation of
the general population. As well as the general population norm the
GeneSys® software includes a number of more specialised norm groups.
These include sales staff, undergraduates, technical trainees, personnel
managers, trainers etc. documented below. In addition the GeneSys® soft-
ware allows users to establish their own in-house norms to allow more
focused comparison with profiles of specific groups. As the Occupational
Personality Profile is scored purely via the GeneSys® system, Psytech
Samples by male/female International does not publish separate norm tables. The GeneSys® OPPro
installation contains all Psytech International norms as an integral part of the
● male software. These norms are available for on-screen viewing. The total norm
● female base of the OPPro is made up of the following constituent samples:

Sample 1: Retail sales staff

Sample 1 A total sample of 371 retail sales staff were obtained from two sources. 302
were sales assistants with one of the UK’s leading and most prestigious
department stores and 69 with a major furniture retail company. Both groups
were participating in validation studies to assess the predictive validity of the
Sample 2 OPPro scales. 41% were males and 59% female.

Sample 2: Undergraduates
The undergraduate sample of 158 consists of Business Studies students from
Sample 3 three UK universities. Of the total undergraduate sample, approximately one
third were male and two thirds female.

Sample 3: Personnel/Training professionals

Sample 4 A sample of 137 Personnel and Training Professionals were obtained from
test training courses organised by Psytech International Limited.
Approximately 60% were in personnel roles, 25% in training roles and the
remaining 15% were management, guidance or outplacement consultants.
Sample 5 Approximately 60% were female and 40% male.

Sample 4: Management applicants

A total Management/graduate applicant sample of 166 was obtained from
Sample 6 the following sources: 83 were applicants for senior executive positions with
NHS Trusts, 51 were management applicants with a major international
bank, 20 applicants with a County Council and 12 with a Management
Consultancy firm. Within the total sample, approximately three quarters
Sample 7 were male and one quarter female.
 dn
Sample 5: Telesales applicants
A sample of 199 applicants for a major insurance group were assessed as
part of a selection procedure. The sample consisted of 66% females and 34%
males.

Sample 6: Technical staff

A total of 319 applicants for technical roles (e.g. service, engineers, techni-
cians, plant assembly workers, printing technicians etc.). These groups were
sourced from a major heavy lifting equipment servicing company, a number
of training organisations and a national local newspaper group. Over 90%
were male, with less than 10% female in this sample.

Sample 7: General applicants

A total of 197 applicants for variety of non-technical, non-managerial roles.
This sample group was obtained from a large number of companies across
the UK who had agreed to help in the standardisation of the OPPro. The
sample consisted of approximately 66% males and 33% females.

Males Females

Sample ID Number Mean Age Range Number Mean Age Range

1 125 39 28-47 41 35 27-40
2 155 23 18-40 216 21 17-41
3 53 37 29-56 84 36 31-44
4 58 22 18-43 100 21 18-32
5 237 29 22-38 461 27 20-41
6 300 35 22-49 19 27 21-35
7 131 29 23-51 68 26 22-45

Total
1059 31 18-56 989 28 18-45

Table 1: Standardisation Sample Composition (age rounded up to nearest year)

do OPP GENDER DIFFERENCES
Gender differences on the OPPro were examined by comparing results of
1194 males with 1395 female respondents. Table 2 provides mean scores for
males and females on each of the OPPro dimensions as well as the t-value for
mean score differences.
Of the ten OPPro dimensions, seven yield statistically significant gender
differences. However, it should be noted that with sample sizes above 1000
for each group, even a raw score difference of one is statistically significant
but is unlikely to generate meaningful differences in interpretation. The
largest obtained difference between males and females is on the Abstract-
Pragmatic dimension with males emerging as significantly more Pragmatic
than females. Females in turn are more Composed, Genuine, Empathic,
Emotional and Trusting than males. They are also more Pessimistic (external
locus of control) than males. No statistically significant differences were
found on the Flexible-Rigid, Reserved-Gregarious and Distortion scales.
Finally, it is noteworthy that on the basis of a smaller sample on whom
central Tendency data were available, a fairly large absolute difference was
observed between females and males (61 to 34). This may have the effect of
generating marginally less extreme profile scores among female than male
respondents.

AGE AND OPP

To assess the relationship between age and OPPro scores, the OPPro results
of 2392 respondents were correlated with their age. The age range of the
sample was 16-64 with a mean of 31 and SD of 10.5, which is representative
of the target audience for the OPPro.
In general, as attested by Table 3, seven of the OPPro dimensions register
significant correlations with age. However, as with the gender differences,
with such a large sample even very small obtained correlations are statisti-
cally significant. Of the seven that are statistically significant, only one
OPPro personality dimension reveals a substantial age effect, namely
Reserved-Gregarious. This suggests that those who are older in the sample,
tend to have lower scores i.e. are more Reserved. This is not totally surpris-
ing, given the nature of the OPPro Reserved-Gregarious dimension and its
focus on social activities, which perhaps tend to be more prominent in
younger years.
The response style indicator for Central Tendency shows a most notable
age effect (r=.49). This would point strongly to older respondents being less
prepared to endorse the more extreme item responses. The practical conse-
quence of this will be to generate less extreme, more moderate profiles. This
will require further investigation as Age does not have a substantial direct
effect on the individual test scores, but may have a moderating effect.

ETHNIC ORIGIN & OPPro

A UK personal development organisation who target their services at ethnic
minorities gave their course participants the OPPro to complete as part of a
development exercise. Table 4 contains data for Black, Asian, Other and
'Norm' groups. Note that the Norm group is the Genesys Undergraduate
norm group, which is a suitable comparison group.
 dp
Mean Mean Valid N Valid N
OPPro Scale Female Males t-value p level Female Male

Assertive 29.17 30.92 -7.93 .000 1395 1194

Flexible 27.92 27.99 -.31 .757 1395 1194
Trusting 35.54 34.75 2.72 .007 1395 1194
Phlegmatic 35.77 38.88 -10.28 .000 1395 1194
Gregarious 34.33 33.88 1.85 .065 1395 1194
Persuasive 23.47 25.82 -10.01 .000 1395 1194
Contesting 28.48 25.97 10.37 .000 1395 1194
Pessimistic 21.54 19.55 8.97 .000 1395 1194
Pragmatic 26.50 29.38 -11.96 .000 1395 1194
Distortion 21.10 21.23 -.76 .447 1395 1194
Central Tendency 60.58 33.91 4.55 .000 77 234

Table 2: OPPro Gender Differences

OPPro Scale r-value N P-value

Assertive -.08 2392 .000

Flexible .07 2392 .000
Trusting .07 2392 .001
Phlegmatic -.08 2392 .000
Gregarious -.28 2392 .000
Persuasive -.12 2392 .000
Contesting .00 2392 .820
Pessimistic .07 2392 .000
Pragmatic -.02 2392 .321
Distortion -.00 2392 .892
Central Tendency .49 294 .000

Table 3: Age Effects on OPPro scores

Black Asian Other Norm

OPPro Scale Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Assertive 31.06 5.93 30.30 6.15 28.55 7.20 30.45 6.35
Flexible 27.65 6.31 29.61 5.41 29.00 5.22 30.37 6.24
Trusting 31.40 8.46 33.00 7.27 33.65 7.44 30.70 7.35
Phlegmatic 36.21 8.58 36.21 6.96 33.45 8.40 32.80 7.36
Gregarious 34.08 6.36 36.72 5.28 34.80 5.32 31.84 6.27
Persuasive 27.84 5.42 28.00 5.74 27.70 7.09 25.59 5.90
Contesting 27.79 6.06 26.90 5.30 27.85 5.07 28.19 6.40
Pessimistic 18.73 5.02 18.90 5.48 21.50 6.58 21.96 5.93
Pragmatic 26.12 5.44 26.27 6.71 26.20 6.90 25.72 6.14
Distortion 20.08 4.18 19.61 3.69 20.55 3.63 19.38 4.33

Black (N=52) Asian (N=71) Other (N=20) Norm (N=236)

Table 4: A Comparison of Ethnic Group Scores with the Genesys Norm
dq RELIABILITY
INTERNAL CONSISTENCY Table 6 reports internal consis-
Internal consistency reliabilities tency estimates for three different
(Cronbach’s Alpha) were computed samples (described above) retail
for an OPPro sample of 942, as well sales staff, undergraduates and
as separately for each of the sexes. personnel and training delegates.
Table 5 provides these coefficients, These estimates indicate that the
number of items per scale and mean OPPro reliability remains fairly
‘corrected’ item-total correlations consistent with only relatively small
(ITC’s) for each scale. The ITC’s fluctuations in alpha values over
indicate the mean association diverse occupational groups. The
between the constituent items within user can therefore be confident that
a scale and the scale score itself, each the OPPro should provide consistent
individual item-scale score coeffi- measurement for diverse groups.
cient is corrected for the inflation of
the coefficient due to the items inclu-
sion in the scale score.
All the OPPro dimensions have
reliability coefficients above .60 for
both males and female groups indi-
cating that the test meets an
acceptable standard of reliability.
The reliability of these scales
compares very favourably with the
reliability coefficients reported in the
user manuals for both the OPQ and
16PF. As a number of authors have
noted, many of the 16PF factors are
very unreliable with few of the alpha
coefficients being greater than .7 and
many in fact being lower than .5. As
will be noted, SEMs for the internal
consistencies (expressed in Stanines)
are all below 1.17.
 dr
Males Females Total Sample
(N=323) (N=619) (N = 942)

OPPro Scale No. of Items Alpha Alpha Alpha ITC SEM

Assertive 10 0.67 0.72 0.71 0.37 1.08

Flexible 10 0.78 0.75 0.77 0.44 0.96
Trusting 11 0.85 0.80 0.83 0.50 0.82
Phlegmatic 12 0.76 0.75 0.75 0.40 1.00
Gregarious 8 0.65 0.69 0.67 0.37 1.15
Persuasive 9 0.66 0.76 0.75 0.43 1.00
Contesting 10 0.77 0.74 0.75 0.41 1.00
Pessimistic 7 0.77 0.73 0.71 0.42 1.08
Pragmatic 9 0.72 0.67 0.70 0.38 1.10
Distortion 8 0.68 0.66 0.66 0.36 1.17

Table 5: OPPro scale internal consistencies & Item Total Correlations (ITCs)

Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3

(N=371) (N=158) (N = 137)

Opp Scale No. of Items Alpha ITC Alpha ITC Alpha ITC

Assertive 10 0.63 0.15 0.73 0.22 0.70 0.20

Flexible 10 0.69 0.18 0.75 0.24 0.77 0.25
Trusting 11 0.77 0.23 0.68 0.16 0.81 0.28
Phlegmatic 12 0.69 0.16 0.72 0.18 0.76 0.21
Gregarious 8 0.64 0.18 0.74 0.27 0.68 0.18
Persuasive 9 0.74 0.24 0.74 0.25 0.74 0.25
Contesting 10 0.65 0.16 0.66 0.16 0.68 0.18
Pessimistic 7 0.68 0.29 0.68 0.24 0.75 0.27
Pragmatic 9 0.67 0.19 0.61 0.15 0.68 0.17
Distortion 8 0.61 0.17 0.67 0.20 0.66 0.19

Table 6: OPPro scale Alpha & ITC’s for various standardisation samples.
ds
STABILITY
Test-retest estimates of reliability
were obtained for two periods, one
and three months respectively. The
three month test-retest data was
obtained from a sample of 260
working professional adults and the
one month data from a sample of
undergraduates. Results in Table 7
indicate that OPPro remains highly
consistent over both time periods
with all coefficients above 0.7 and on
average above 0.8. This suggests
that the OPPro results are stable
over time periods of up to at least
three months.
One notable finding is that the
undergraduate data over the one
month period is slightly less stable
than that of the working adults over
a period twice as long. This may
reflect somewhat more variable test
taking motivation and/or stability in
personality disposition among the
undergraduate group.
CONCLUSION: RELIABILITY
The above internal consistency and
stability estimates of reliability
demonstrate that the OPPro is highly
reliable internally and over the time
periods covered. These reliabilities
compare very favourably with other
modern personality measures. Thus
we can conclude that the OPPro has
achieved its aim of being both quick
to complete yet reliable when
compared with other commonly used
personality questionnaires.
THE INTERNAL STRUCTURE OF
THE OPPro
The inter-correlations between the
various dimensions of a test are of
interest as it is important that a test’s
sub-scales are relatively independent
of each other, thus demonstrating
that they are measuring distinct
constructs.
Table 8 demonstrates that the
correlations between the OPPro sub-
scales are modest in size, indicating
that the ten dimensions measured by
the test assess different personality
characteristics. There are, however,
some interesting patterns of correla-
tions between the OPPro factors.
One is the moderately high correla-
tion between Assertive and
Persuasive. This suggests that
assertive people are likely to be more
manipulative in their dealings with
others. This is clearly consistent with
our definition of this scale. In addi-
tion the OPPro dimension Trusting is
negatively correlated with both the
Contesting and Pessimistic dimen-
sions. This is consistent with all
dimensions measuring different
aspects of anxiety. People who are
trusting tend to be more composed,
phlegmatic and confident that their
efforts will result in positive
outcomes. Such a finding is consis-
tent both with our expectations and
with research which suggests that an
internal locus of control is associated
with positive mental health. That is
to say that more optimistic people,
who believe they are in control of the
direction their life is taking, are more
emotionally stable and less prone to
mood swings.
 dt
3 Months 1.5 Months 3 Months 1.5 months
OPPro Dimension (N=260) (N=77) SEM SEM

Assertive 0.85 0.83 0.77 0.82

Flexible 0.88 0.84 0.69 0.8
Trusting 0.84 0.82 0.8 0.85
Phlegmatic 0.86 0.76 0.75 0.98
Gregarious 0.89 0.82 0.66 0.85
Persuasive 0.91 0.88 0.6 0.69
Contesting 0.88 0.73 0.69 1.04
Pessimistic 0.80 0.80 0.89 0.89
Pragmatic 0.91 0.88 0.6 0.69
Motivational Distortion 0.79 0.76 0.92 0.98

Table 7: OPPro Test-retest Reliability over two different time periods

OPPro Scales 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 Assertive 1.00 -.02 -.18 .29 .08 .49 .16 -.24 -.09 .07
2 Flexible -.02 1.0 .26 .06 .04 .12 -.28 -.34 -.27 -.27
3 Trusting -.18 .26 1.00 .25 .24 .01 -.37 -.38 -.13 .13
4 Phlegmatic .29 .06 .25 1.00 .29 .31 -.24 -.45 .02 .32
5 Gregarious .08 .04 .24 .29 1.00 .29 -.12 -.21 -.11 .05
6 Persuasive .49 .12 .01 .31 .29 1.00 .08 -.32 -.22 .04
7 Contesting .16 -.28 -.37 -.24 -.12 .08 1.00 .29 .03 .08
8 Pessimistic -.24 -.34 -.38 -.45 -.21 -.32 .29 1.00 .17 -.05
9 Pragmatic -.09 -.27 -.13 .02 -.11 -.22 .03 .17 1.00 .03
10 Distortion .07 -.27 .13 .32 .05 .04 .08 -.05 .03 1.00

Table 8: Product-moment Correlations between OPPro Sub-scales (n = 988)

ek CONSTRUCT VALIDITY
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
THE OPPro DIMENSIONS AND
THE 16PF FACTORS
A sample of 136 applicants
completed both the OPPro and 16PF
Form A as part of a selection
process. The resultant correlation
matrix is displayed in Table 9.
While good support is found for
most, if not all OPPro dimensions,
this is moderated by the low reliabil-
ity of 16PF Form A which has the
effect of suppressing resultant corre-
lations. OPPro dimensions for which
there are no clear 16PF equivalent
factors provide an interesting pattern
of results. OPPro Persuasive corre-
lates with both 16PF Factor F and
H, which are undoubtedly aspects of
the ‘social-chameleon’ behaviour
associated with self-monitors. OPPro
Pessimistic (Internal Locus-of-
Control) picks up aspects of anxiety
as measured by 16PF but also
Seriousness (F) and Shrewdness (N).
The latter is an unusual relationship,
but in so far as N on Form A of the
16PF appears to reflect an aspect of
threat-sensitivity and the polar-
opposite of Forthrightness, this may
make more sense. OPPro Contesting,
a measure of Type-A behaviour, is
not well represented in 16PF, with
only Q4 registering a modest .3
correlations. Finally, OPPro
Trusting-Cynical, a measure of the
Machiavellian personality type, is
poorly represented within the 16PF,
with maximum correlations of only
.31 and .30 with Tough-minded and
Suspicious.
Using the sample of 136 appli-
cants, multiple regression was used
to predict OPPro dimensions from
16PF. Those 16PF factors included
in the equation and the multiple
regression coefficient R are provided
in Table 9.
The multiple correlations demon-
strate that most of the OPPro
dimensions can be predicted with a
high degree of accuracy from the
16PF factors. This provides clear
evidence of the validity of the major-
ity of the OPPro dimensions. There
are, however, a number of exceptions
to this general rule. Firstly, as was
noted above, the OPPro dimensions
Contesting and Pessimistic are not
predicted well from the 16PF. The
concepts of the Coronary Type A
Personality and Locus of Control
had not been developed when the
16PF was constructed and thus these
personality dimensions are not
directly measured by this personality
questionnaire. Similarly the notion of
the Machiavellian Personality was
not conceived until the 1960’s and
consequently this personality charac-
teristic has not been included in the
16PF. This accounts for our inability
to predict the OPPro dimension
Trusting vs. Cynical from the 16PF.
That Machiavellians lack aesthetic
sensitivity (tough-minded) and
interpersonal warmth is however not
surprising. This is consistent with the
finding that the OPQ dimension
Empathy is negatively correlated
with Machiavellianism.
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
THE OPPro DIMENSIONS AND
THE 16PF-5 FACTORS
A sample of 102 personnel and
training professionals attending
Psytech training courses completed
both the OPPro and 16PF-5 ques-
tionnaires as part of the course
requirement (see Table 10).
One interesting observation from
the studies with both old and new
forms of the 16PF is that generally
the observed correlations with 16PF-
5 are of a higher order. This would
be expected by virtue of the higher
reliability associated with 16PF-5.
Once again, it can be noted that
OPPro scales Contesting and
 el
OPPro Scale R 16PF correlations with each OPPro Scale

Assertive .50 Assertive (E) .36, Forthright (N) .32

Flexible .71 Expedient (G) .56, Radical (Q1) .41, Undisciplined (Q3) .48

Trusting .48 Tender-minded (I) .31, Trusting (L) .31

Phlegmatic .65 Calm-stable (C ) .50, Socially-Bold (H) .3, Self-assured (Q2) .42, Relaxed (Q4) .40

Gregarious .74 Warmth (A) .38, Enthusiastic (F) .59, Socially-Bold (H) .49, Group-orientated (Q2)

Persuasive .62 Enthusiastic (F) .46, Socially-bold (H) .41,

Contesting .44 Tense-driven (Q4) .30, Calm-stable (C ) .25, Apprehensive (O) .24

Pessimistic .56 Sober-serious (F) .3, Shrewdness (N) .31, Tense-driven (Q4) .37

Pragmatic .69 Tough-minded (I) .55, Practical (M) .31

Distortion .52 Conscientious (G) .34, Fake-good (FG) .42

Table 9: Correlations between OPPro and 16PF Form A Factors

OPPro Scale R 16PF-5 correlations with each OPPro Scale

Assertive .68 Dominant (E) .57, Socially-bold (H) .31

Flexible .72 Expedient (G) .53, Sensitive (I) .38, Abstract (M) .45, Open to Change (Q1) .42,
Flexible (Q3) .53

Trusting .75 Trusting .75

Phlegmatic .77 Stability (C ) .54, Dominance (E) .37, Socially-Bold (H) .41, Utilitarian (I) .35,
Self-assured (O) .60, Relaxed (Q4) .38, Impression-Mgt (IM) .34

Gregarious .82 Warm (A) .48, Stable (C ) .43, Lively (F) .54, Forthright (N) .52,
Group-oriented (Q2) .72 Relaxed (Q4) .37

Persuasive .69 Dominant (E) .31, Lively (F) .36, Socially-bold (H) .55, Group-oriented (Q2) .30

Contesting .49 Vigilant (L) .37, Tense (Q4) .22, Emotional (C ) .26

Pessimistic .57 Emotional (C ) .32, Vigilant (L) .40, Apprehensive (O) .30, Tense (Q4) .34

Pragmatic .77 Utilitarian (I) .67, Vigilant (L) .33, Concrete (M) .48, Traditional (Q1) .42

Distortion .71 Trusting (L) .32, Tense (Q4) .45, Impression-Mgt (IM) .57

Table 10: Correlations between OPPro and 16PF Form 5 Factors

em
Pessimistic have relatively weak
overlap with 16PF-5 factors with
multiple correlations reaching only
.49 and .57 respectively. The OPPro
dimension Trusting-Cynical now
correlates .75 with 16PF-5 Factor L
(Vigilance), when it only correlated
.31 with 16PF Form A Factor L
(Suspicious). This reflects very
clearly the lack of equivalence
between the old and new form as far
as Factor L is concerned. In fact, the
correlation between old and new
form of the 16PF is reported as 0.15
and 0.38 for the UK and US forms
respectively.
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
THE OPPro DIMENSIONS AND
15FQ SCALES
A sample of 158 volunteers
completed both the OPPro and the
15FQ as part of a test validation
exercise. These comprised primarily
personnel and training delegates
attending Psytech courses but also a
group of undergraduate Business
Study students who completed both
tests as part of a course in Personnel
Selection. Table 11 provides a list of
OPPro dimensions correlating with
each 15FQ scale.
What is evident from the table
above is that there is a significant
amount of overlap between the two
measures. Equally it indicates which
of the OPPro dimensions are not
adequately covered by the 15FQ.
The OPPro Assertive dimension
correlates best with the 15FQ
Assertive dimension and substan-
tially with the 15FQ Direct scale,
suggesting that high Assertive scorers
on OPPro tend to be both dominant
and direct (unrestrained) in their
dealings with others. The Flexible
dimension of the OPPro correlates
substantially with the 15FQ
Disciplined (-), Detail-Conscious (-),
Radical and Restrained (-) dimen-
sions, pointing to high scorers being
undisciplined, expedient, unre-
strained and spontaneous. The
OPPro Trusting dimension correlates
-0.68 with 15FQ Suspicious which
strongly suggests that both scales are
measuring the same underlying
personality trait. The OPPro
Phlegmatic dimension correlates
with all three 15FQ anxiety dimen-
sions, Calm-stable, Self-doubting (-)
and Tense-Driven (-), indicating that
the Phlegmatic dimension is a good
general measure of stability. OPPro
Gregarious is also significantly
related to all the 15FQ Extraversion
dimensions, Outgoing, Enthusiastic,
Socially Bold, and Self Sufficient (-).
The OPPro Persuasive dimension
while correlating with the same
15FQ Extraversion dimensions has a
higher degree of overlap with the
15FQ dimensions Enthusiastic,
Socially Bold and Assertive and
Restraint (-) suggesting that high
scorers on Persuasiveness tend to be
less empathic and warm-hearted.
Locus of Control (Pessimistic)
appears to span a number of 15FQ
dimensions covering Extraversion,
Anxiety and Independence. This
would suggest that individuals who
have internal locus of Control
(Optimistic), tend to be more
resilient, enthusiastic, venturesome,
direct and self-assured. The
Pragmatic dimension of the OPPro
has very strong inverse relationships
with both the Intuitive and
Imaginative dimension of the 15FQ.
The only OPPro dimension which
appears to have no direct equivalent
in 15FQ is the Type-A measure,
Contesting, which correlates moder-
 en
OPPro Scale R 15FQ correlations with each OPPro Scale

Assertive .73 Dominant (FE) .65, Direct (FN) .45

Flexible .72 Expedient (FG) .52, Direct (FN) .37, Radical (FQ1) .45, Informal (Q3) .57

Trusting .75 Trusting (FL) .68, Informal (FQ3) .32

Phlegmatic .77 Stability (FC) .44, Dominance (FE) .33, Direct (FN) .32, Confident (FO) .48,
Relaxed (Q4) .34

Gregarious .82 Outgoing (FA) .59, Enthusiastic (FF) .37, Socially-Bold (FH) .40,
Group-orientated (FQ2) .56

Persuasive .69 Enthusiastic (FF) .45, Socially-bold (FH) .56

Contesting .49 Self-doubting (FO) .33, Suspicious (FL) .28, Tense (Q4) .44

Pessimistic .57 Temperamental (FC) .31, Restrained (FN) .36, Self-doubting (FO) .29,
Retiring (FA) .25

Pragmatic .77 Retiring (FA) .31, Reserved (FH) .31, Factual (FI) .63, Practical (FM) .64,
Conventional (FQ1) .31

Distortion .71 Suspicious (FL) .32, Distortion (FMD) .50

Table 11: Correlations between OPPro & 15FQ

eo
ately with Suspicious and modestly
with Self-doubting and Tense-
driven.
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
THE OPPRO & THE OPQ
FACTOR5
Below we present multiple regres-
sions predicting each of the OPPro
dimensions from the OPQ† Factor 5.
As noted in Table 12, these multiple-
correlations (linear regressions)
clearly demonstrate that the person-
ality characteristics measured by the
OPPro are consistent with those
measured by the OPQ.
The multiple-correlations indicate
that with the exception of the OPPro
dimensions Contesting and
Pessimistic, all the dimensions which
are measured by this test are well
predicted by the OPQ. Moreover, this
pattern of results is consistent with
the underlying meaning of each of
these dimensions. Although the
pattern of results predicting
Contesting and Pessimistic is consis-
tent with the meaning of these
dimensions the multiple-correlations
with the OPQ are low. This is proba-
bly because these two OPPro
dimensions are not directly measured
by the OPQ. For example, the OPQ
scale Optimism is measuring an
aspect of emotional stability, the
tendency to feel depressed and
lethargic for no real reason.
The OPPro dimension Optimistic
vs. Pessimistic on the other hand is
assessing a person’s sense that they
are in control of their life. Although
this construct is associated with both
depression and emotional instability
it is nonetheless a distinct personality
construct, as these results demon-
strate. Similarly the OPQ does not
† OPQ is a registered trademark of SHL
attempt to measure the Coronary
Type A Personality and for this
reason it can only poorly predict the
OPPro dimension Composed vs.
Contesting.
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
THE OPPro SCALES AND JUNG
TYPE INDICATOR
A sample of 95 volunteers completed
both the OPPro and the JTI as part
of a test validation exercise. These
comprised primarily personnel and
training delegates attending Psytech
courses but also a group of under-
graduate Business Study students
who completed both tests as part of a
course on Personnel Selection.
Table 13 suggests good overlap
with OPPro dimension and JTI with
simple correlations with each of the
JTI scales and a single OPPro dimen-
sion ranging from .57 to .73. The
most notable relationships exist
between Gregarious and EI (-.62),
Pragmatic and SN (-.66),
Phlegmatic and TF (-.32) and
Flexible with JP (.45). In addition to
being linked to anxiety, TF is also
related to empathy and imagination.
With the levels of overlap reported
here, the OPPro could provide fairly
accurate estimates of type.
 ep
OPPro Scale R OPQ predictors for each OPPro Scale

Assertive .65 -Empathy, Influence, Contesting, Gregarious

Flexible .58 -Detail-conscious, -Planful, -Conservative

Trusting .64 Empathy, -Contesting

Phlegmatic .61 Phlegmatic, Relaxed, Optimistic, Social-confidence

Gregarious .58 Gregarious, Social-confidence

Persuasive .66 Influence, Gregarious

Contesting .44 -Relaxed, Contesting, Active, -Phlegmatic

Pessimistic .43 -Optimistic, Planful, Contesting

Pragmatic .53 -Imaginative, Planful, Detail-conscious, -Empathy

Distortion .53 Social Desirability

Table 12: Multiple Regressions predicting the OPPro from OPQ Factor 5 (N = 41)

OPPro Scale EI SN TF JP

ASSERTIVE -.29 .01 -.17 .06

FLEXIBLE -.01 .43 .11 .45
TRUSTING -.04 .09 .18 .02
PHLEGMATIC -.12 .14 -.32 .17
GREGARIOUS -.62 -.11 .15 -.03
PERSUASIVE -.50 .34 .02 .18
CONTESTING -.11 .04 .08 .06
EXTERNAL .16 -.23 .12 -.24
PRAGMATIC -.11 -.66 -.24 -.25
CONFORMING .02 .07 .12 .02
CENTRAL -.11 .03 .06 -.11

Course Delegates (n=95)

Table 13: Correlations Between OPPro & JTI

eq
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
THE OPPro AND EYSENCK’S
EPQR AND I7 SCALES
A sample of 158 professional
working adults completed both the
OPPro and the EPQR and I7 as part
of a test validation exercise. From
the results presented in Table 14, we
are able to discern that the OPPro
correlates well with the EPQR
Extraversion and Anxiety factors
and reasonably well with the I7
Empathy factor. Both OPPro dimen-
sions Gregarious and Persuasive
have strong correlation with
Extraversion with more modest asso-
ciation being observed with OPPro
Assertive and Phlegmatic. In OPPro
terms, an Extravert will tend to be
gregarious and outgoing, not only
enjoying company of others but also
being in the social spot-light. They
will be able to perform to the gallery,
often taking the lead in meetings and
social events and generally having a
degree of confidence and will not
typically suffer from stage-fright.
EPQR Neuroticism has a strong
inverse association with the OPPro
dimension Phlegmatic and a moder-
ate positive association with OPPro
Pessimistic or external locus of
control.
Psychoticism is not well measured
by OPPro as would be expected.
Only modest associations are found
with EPQR Psychoticism with high
scores on OPPro Assertive and
Flexible and low scores on Trusting.
Whereas the I7 measure of
Impulsiveness does not relate to any
OPPro dimension, Venturesomeness
is moderately related to OPPro
Persuasive, Phlegmatic, Optimistic
and Assertive. Empathy appears to
provide support for the OPPro
Assertive dimension in that high
scorers on I7 Empathy tend to be
more accommodating. Equally high
scorers on I7 Empathy tend to be
less phlegmatic in OPPro terms.
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
THE OPPro AND THE NEO
A sample of 107 delegates on
Psytech training courses completed
both the OPPro and the NEO short
form. Results were correlated and
the extent to which the ‘big-five’ as
measured by the NEO could be
predicted by OPPro was estimated
via multiple regression.
Most notable in Table 15 are the
very high multiple R achieved in
each case by a relatively small
number of OPPro dimensions. This
would tend to demonstrate that
OPPro has excellent coverage of the
‘Big-Five’ and would more than
justify using OPPro to predict ‘Big-
Five’ scores.
Taking each in turn, Neuroticism
(N) correlates most highly (-) with
OPPro Phlegmatic, but also registers
a notable correlation with Pessimistic
(Locus-of-control). The modest rela-
tionship with OPPro Suspicious is not
surprising as this is generally consid-
ered to reflect an aspect of anxiety.
Extraversion correlates most highly
with OPPro Gregarious but also to a
lesser extent, Persuasive. The modest
negative correlations with Pessimistic
and Pragmatic only serve to suggest
that Extroverts perhaps tend to be
somewhat more Internal and
Abstract-minded. Openness registers
a very notable correlation with OPPro
Abstract-Pragmatic, with Flexible
and Trusting correlating more
modestly. The NEO factor for
Agreeableness is perhaps most hard to
pin down, at least as far as OPPro is
concerned, with no bi-variate correla-
tion exceeding .5. However the
picture that emerges from the four
significant correlations is that those
high on Agreeableness (as expressed
 EPQR EPQR EPQR EPQR 17 17 17
er
OPPro Scale Psych Extra Neurot Lie Impul Vent Emp

Assertive .34 .38 .32 -.44

Flexible .32

Trusting -.29

Phlegmatic .37 -.60 .35 -.42

Gregarious .56 .27

Persuasive .55 .46 -.27

EPQR-Psych Psychoticism
Contesting EPQR-Extra Extraversion
-.42 .32 -.31 EPQR-Neurot Neuroticism
Pessimistic EPQR-Lie Social-Desirability
I7-Impul Impulsivity
Pragmatic I7-Vent Venturesomeness
I7-Emp Empathy-Sensitivity
Distortion .56

Table 14: Correlations between OPPro dimensions, EPQR and I7 (n = 158)

OPPro Scale N E O A C

Assertive -.44 -.38 .33

Flexible .43 -.47

Trusting -.31 .35 .47

Phlegmatic -.70 .52

Gregarious .52

Persuasive .38 .38

Contesting

Pessimistic .58 -.33 -.38

Pragmatic -.30 -.67 -.35 N Neuroticism

E Extraversion
Multiple R .75 .73 .74 .74 .71 O Openness
A Agreeableness
Table 15: Correlations Between the OPPro & NEO (N=107) C Conformity
es
by NEO) tend to be more trusting and
accommodating, are more aware of
the feelings of others (Persuasive) and
finally more Abstract. The highest
single correlation with NEO
Conformity is obtained with OPPro
Phlegmatic, which would point to
some lack of convergence between the
two measures. However, examination
of the correlation between NEO N
and C reveal the single highest inter-
correlation (-.42) suggesting that
some of the overlap is inherent within
the NEO itself. In addition, to this
perhaps surprising result, less unex-
pected was the -.47 correlation with
OPPro Flexibility-Rigidity.
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
THE OPPro DIMENSIONS AND
LINE’S PPQ
A sample of 144 volunteers
completed both the OPPro and the
PPQ as part of a test validation exer-
cise.
Table 16 provides some evidence
to suggest that the OPPro dimen-
sions cover the measurement space
of the ‘Big-Five’ factors as measured
by the PPQ. The PPQ
Unconventional factor correlates
positively with Flexible and nega-
tively with Pragmatic as would be
expected. The most substantial
correlation is between the PPQ
Conscientious Factor and the OPPro
Flexible vs. Detail-Conscious.
Tender-Minded individuals as
measured by the PPQ tend to be
more Accommodating and Abstract
as measured by the OPPro.
There are some unexpected find-
ings. Whereas we would expect PPQ
Insecurity to correlate substantially
with the OPPro Anxiety measure,
Phlegmatic, the correlation (-.31) is
only modest in size. More substantial
correlations are obtained with the
Genuine end of the Persuasive scale
and the Pessimistic (External Locus
of Control) scale. Whereas the latter
is generally consistent with Locus of
Control being an indicator of positive
mental health, the former correlation
would suggest a significant social
anxiety element to the PPQ
Insecurity Factor. The second unex-
pected finding is the failure of the
OPPro Gregarious dimension to
correlate significantly with PPQ
Extraversion. Modest correlations are
obtained with OPPro dimensions
Persuasive and Internal Locus of
Control and PPQ Extraversion.
Given that these OPPro dimensions
are relatively independent, correlat-
ing only at -.32, this would once
again point to some degree of
overlap between the Insecurity and
Extraversion Factors of the PPQ.
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
THE OPPro AND THE VALUES &
MOTIVES INVENTORY (VMI)
A group of 59 undergraduate
Psychology students volunteered to
participate in a test validation exer-
cise which involved completing both
OPPro and two Values question-
naires, VMI and MAPP. For their
co-operation, they were all offered
an interpretation of their results.
While VMI is strictly a measure of
personal values, the degree of overlap
that was observed with OPPro is note-
worthy. Two very substantial
correlations were observed. The first
OPPro Pragmatic-Abstract and VMI
Aesthetics (-.71) would suggest that
these two scales are virtually inter-
changeable. That is, the measure of
how important you consider Aesthetics
to be, is hardly different to how inter-
ested you are in Abstract and
Imaginative pursuits as self-reported in
a trait based questionnaire (in this case
 et
PPQ PPQ PPQ PPQ PPQ
OPPro Scale Insecure Tender-minded Extraversion Conscientious Unconventional

Assertive -.36 -.56 .33

Flexible

Trusting

Phlegmatic -.31

Gregarious

Persuasive -.43 -.36

Contesting .31

Pessimistic .40 -.35 .28

Pragmatic -.38 -.36

Distortion

Table 16: Correlations Between the OPPro & PPQ (N=144)

fk
OPPro). An alternative explanation
may be that if you are highly abstract
and imaginative, you are likely to
consider such pursuits as highly impor-
tant. This may also apply to the other
substantially elevated correlation
between Affiliative Needs as measured
by VMI and OPPro Gregarious (.73). If
you are gregarious, you tend to have
high affiliation needs.
Some other interesting although
less significant trends emerge. High
scorers on OPPro assertive tend to
place less emphasis on traditional
values, having higher needs for
Achievement and Financial Status.
Those with high scores on Flexible
appear less concerned with Tradition,
Ethics, Morality and high achieve-
ment, placing greater value on
independence and aesthetics. OPPro
Trusting-Cynical correlates most
highly with Altruism and Affiliation.
Interestingly, the negative correlations
observed between OPPro Phlegmatic
and VMI Safety and Ethics would
suggest that those who are concerned
about safety are more likely to be
anxious as measured by OPPro and
that those who emphasise spiritual
values also tend to be marginally
more anxious than those who do not.
This ties in with the correlation
between Locus of Control and VMI
Ethics which suggests that some
degree of fatalism may be attached to
such beliefs. The VMI relationships
with OPPro Persuasive are also inter-
esting. Here the suggestion is that
those who are more likely to ‘play to
the gallery’ and be ‘political’ if need
be are less likely to hold strong
personal beliefs and at the same time
are likely to have a stronger need for
achievement. It should be pointed out
that these correlations are modest.
OPPro Contesting, which registers
fairly modest correlations with other
measures, registers .35 with Need for
Achievement which is entirely consis-
tent with the go-getting freneticism of
the Type-A personality.
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
THE OPPro AND MAPP VALUES
The same sample of 59 Psychology
undergraduates described above
completed OPPro and MAPP. The
results are presented in Table 18.
While the two measures are not
designed to cover the same constructs,
nonetheless some meaningful patterns
emerge which provide further insights
into the nature of the OPPro dimen-
sions. For example, the results suggest
that people who value Responsibility
are more likely to be Assertive in
OPPro terms. MAPP Empathy and
OPPro Empathic (low Assertive)
correlate quite well (0.46) suggesting
that those who value EMpathic behav-
iour are more likely to express it as
well. The more Detailed they are (ie
low on Flexibility) the more emphasis
is placed on Security, Personal
Authority and Results whereas higher
scores on Flexibility are associated
Novelty and Levity. Higher scores on
Gregariousness are associated with an
emphasis on Intimacy and the OPPro
Contesting is strongly associated with
MAPP Competition, Results and
Responsibility. Those high on OPPro
Contesting appear to place less
emphasis on Levity, which suggests
that they are perhaps inclined to take
things quite seriously. A very strong
relationship was registered between
OPPro Abstract and MAPP Self-
expression (0.63) supporting the
finding observed with the VMI that
trait expressions of Abstract-thinking
are no more than an expression of an
orientation or preference.
 fl
OPPro Scale VMI correlations with each OPPro Scale

Assertive Traditional (-.32), Nach (.30), Financial Status (.33)

Flexible Traditional (-.58), Moral (-.32), Independence (.52), Ethics (-.32),

Nach (-.37), Aesthetics (.33)
Trusting Moral (.34), Altruism (.51), Affiliation (.37),
Affection (.31) Financial Status (-.32), Aesthetics (.32)
Phlegmatic Ethics (-.32), Safety (-.33)

Gregarious Affiliation (.73), Affection (.47)

Persuasive Ethics (-.32), Nach (.27)

Contesting Nach (.35)

Pessimistic Ethics (.32)

Pragmatic Independence (-.32), Aesthetics (-.71)

Nach = Need for
Distortion Moral (.46), Altruism (.37) Achievement

Table 17: Correlations Between the OPPro & VMI (N=59)

OPPro Scale MAPP correlations with each OPPro Scale

Assertive Responsibility .36, Novelty .33, Altruism -.46

Flexible Results -.35, Pers Authority -.53, Novelty .34, Levity .42,
Security -.41
Trusting Altruism .48, Intimacy .34

Phlegmatic Security -.26, Work .27

Gregarious Intimacy .47

Persuasive Responsibility .32, Intellect .28, Results .27

Contesting Competition .50, Results .44, Pers Authority .34, Responsibility .40,
Levity -.41
Pessimistic Recognition .37, Responsibility -.34, Intellect -.30

Pragmatic Novelty -.36, Self-expression -.63

Distortion Material Wealth -.34, Altruism .46

Table 18: Correlations Between the OPPro & MAPP (N=59)

fm
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
THE OPPro AND GORDON’S
SURVEY OF INTERPERSONAL
VALUES
A sample of 375 volunteers
completed both the OPPro and the
Survey of Interpersonal Values
(GSIV) as part of a test validation
exercise. The sample comprised
professional working adults, under-
graduate students, lecturers and
academic administrative staff.
The GSIV measures individuals’
values by assessing what they
consider important in relationships
with others for the purpose of selec-
tion, placement, counselling and
research. As the GSIV assesses values
and not personality traits, it would
be expected that the overlap between
the two tests would be fairly modest.
However, results on Table 19 indi-
cate that there may be some sizeable
relationships between personality
predisposition and what we consider
important in our inter-personal rela-
tionships. The most striking
correlation is between OPPro dimen-
sion Flexible and the GSIV Need for
Conformity. This correlation is at the
level that would be expected as a
reliability estimate of an individual
scale and suggests that these two
dimensions are covering essentially
the same measurement space. GSIV
Needs for Recognition and
Benevolence are not well measured
by the OPPro with only very modest
correlations obtained. Need for
Independence correlates well with
OPPro dimension Assertive and
Need for Leadership with Assertive
and Persuasive, suggesting that
people who want to take the lead in
their inter-personal relationships also
tend to have assertive and fairly
persuasive characters.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
OPPro AND THE
OCCUPATIONAL
INTEREST PROFILE (OIP)
A sample of 108 undergraduate
Psychology students completed the
OPPro, Occupational Interest Profile
(OIP) and the VPI (Vocational
Preference Inventory) as part of a
validation exercise.
While it might not be expected
that personality trait scales correlate
with vocational interests, the OIP
Work Needs reflect in part personal
qualities that are relevant in the
world of work. As such (see Table
20) OIP Stability correlates very
highly with OPPro Phlegmatic (.74)
and OIP People with OPPro
Gregarious (.74). Also notable is the
strong observed relationship between
OIP Control and OPPro Assertive,
both of which reflect a desire to take
a dominant role in inter-personal
situations. Less significant but
nonetheless noteworthy, OIP Change,
which reflect a preference for variety
at work as opposed to routine, corre-
lates .51 with OPPro Flexible-Rigid.
The OIP Variety scale which in fact
assesses a preference for excitement
and risk-taking as opposed to safety
and security, only registers a
marginal
(-.28) correlation for Locus-of-
Control. This suggests that there is a
small tendency for risk-takers to
have a more internal Locus-of-
Control –hardly remarkable.
 fn
GSIV GSIV GSIV GSIV GSIV GSIV
OPPro Scale Support Confor Recog Indep Benev Leader

Assertive .21 .40 .50

Flexible -.72 -.21 .22

Trusting -.26

Phlegmatic -.39

Gregarious .21 GSIV-Support – Support

Persuasive .27 .49 GSIV-Confor – Conformity

Contesting .20 .25 GSIV-Recog – Recognition

Pessimistic .31 -.25 GSIV-Indep – Independence

Pragmatic .21 GSIV-Benev – Benevolence

Distortion -.31 -.27 GSIV-Leader – Leadership

Table 19: Correlations Between OPPro & GSIV (N=375)

OIP WORK NEEDS

OPPro Scale Variety Stability Change People Control

Assertive .32 .65

Flexible .51

Trusting .41

Phlegmatic .74 -.31 .30

Gregarious .74 .31

Persuasive .44 .47

Contesting -.30

Pessimistic -.28 -.42 VARIETY Need for Excitement

STABILITY Need for Stability
Pragmatic CHANGE Need for Change
PEOPLE Need for People
Distortion .36 CONTROL Need for Leadership

Table 20: Correlations Between OPPro & OIP Work Needs (N=108)
fo
As suggested above, there is less
expectation for personality traits to
overlap for vocational interest scales
and by and large this is the case with
OPPro and the OIP interest scales
(see Table 22). There are one or two
notable exceptions. The OIP prefer-
ence which reflects activities
including selling and persuading
(Persuasive) registers a very high
correlation with OPPro Persuasive
(.72). Equally, the observed correla-
tion between OPPro
Pragmatic-Abstract and OIP Artistic
is exceptionally high (.82), suggest-
ing that expressed interest as
measured by OIP is hardly distinct
from expressed behaviour as
measured by OPPro. OIP Scientific
interest hardly registers with OPPro,
other than to suggest that people who
are generally more interested in
Scientific pursuits are marginally
more stable and internal. OIP
Practical appears to have no coverage
within OPPro, whereas OIP
Administrative/Clerical appears to
link with OPPro Pragmatic-Abstract
and Flexible-Rigid, although only
marginally. The OIP Nurturing scale
does correlate with OPPro Gregarious
and Composed. This reflects that the
OPPro Gregarious does cover
empathy, concern, as well patience,
as far as other people are concerned.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
OPPro AND HOLLAND’S
VOCATIONAL
PREFERENCE INVENTORY (VPI)
A sample of 108 undergraduate
Psychology students completed the
OPPro, Occupational Interest Profile
(OIP) and the VPI (Vocational
Preference Inventory) as part of a
validation exercise.
The Holland VPI covers not only
vocational interests but also
measures a number of personality
characteristics, based on the selec-
tion of job titles. The VPI three letter
code, based on the three highest
recorded interests, can provide the
basis for a job-search for which
numerous references are available.
Other than the very high correla-
tion with OPPro Abstract-Pragmatic
with VPI Artistic, only modest corre-
lations were observed (see Table 22).
This is not surprising as OPPro and
VPI set out to measure different
characteristics. Once again as
observed with the relationship
between OPPro and OIP, a very
strong link appears to be confirmed
between expressed interest in
Artistic/Creative activities and
Abstract/Imaginative behaviour.
This same finding is evident from the
OPPro/MAPP and OPPro/VMI rela-
tionships which suggest equally that
personality and values are less
distinguishable than might ideally be
the case. Preference for Realistic
professions registers only a marginal
.27 correlation with OPPro
Pragmatic, whereas personality
appears to have little to do with
interest in the Scientific area. Social
(nurturing) professions are more
likely to be endorsed by higher
scorers on OPPro Gregarious, reflect-
ing the concern for people aspect
within this OPPro scale. The VPI
Enterprising scale appears to be
marginally related to OPPro flexibil-
ity, suggesting that individuals who
are more set in their ways are less
inclined to opt for roles which
demand demonstrable business
outcomes. Perhaps a little surprising,
VPI Conventional scale does not
register at all with OPPro Rigid-
Flexible (r=-.09) and only
 fp
OIP VOCATIONAL INTERESTS

OPPro Scale Pers SCI PRA ADM NUR ART LOG

Assertive .50

Flexible -.30

Trusting

Phlegmatic .26 -.29 .28

Gregarious .44

Persuasive .72

Contesting -.32 PERS Persuasive

PRA Practical
Pessimistic -.29 SCI Scientific
LOG Logical
Pragmatic .30 -.82 .32 ADM Clerical
NUR Nurturing
Distortion ART Artistic

Table 21: Correlations Between OPPro & OIP Interests (N=108)

OPPro Scale R I S E A C SC M/F Status Infreq

Assertive .30

Flexible -.34

Trusting .24

Phlegmatic -.29

Gregarious .34 R Realistic

E Enterprising
Persuasive .34 -.39 -.27 I Investigative
A Artistic
Contesting S Scientific
C Conventional
Pessimistic SC Self-Control
M/F Masculinity
Pragmatic .27 .30 -.66 .27 .38 -.34 Femininity
Status Status Capacity
Distortion Infreq Infrequency

Table 22: Correlations Between OPPro & VPI (N=108)

fq
marginally with Abstract-Pragmatic
(.27).
While stronger relationships
might be expected with VPI person-
ality scales, this is only partly the
case. The VPI personality scales were
not designed to provide a definitive,
comprehensive measure of personal-
ity and do not conform to any
particular theory of behaviour. As
such there is no measure of
Extraversion or Anxiety, which are
considered to be the most important
of personality factors. In spite of this,
some interesting relationships were
observed.
The Masculinity-Femininity scale
of the VPI registers a notable 0.38
correlation with OPPro Abstract-
Pragmatic, suggesting that those
who tend to select masculine occupa-
tions tend to be more Pragmatic as
measured by the OPPro. As the VPI
Masculinity-Femininity scale is
capable of classifying males and
females fairly accurately, this might
point to a possible sex difference on
this OPPro scale. Capacity for status
correlates with OPPro Assertive,
Persuasive and Abstract.
VALIDITY STUDY USING
EXTERNAL CRITERION SCALES
A concurrent validity study was
performed correlating a number of
the OPPro dimensions with the
specific external criterion scales on
which they were based:
Rigidity
The OPPro dimension Flexible –
Detail -Conscious was validated
against Gough and Sandford’s
(1952) Rigidity scale. This scale
measures an individual’s resistance
to change with high scorers being
detail conscious, persevering and
fastidious and low scorers having a
conservative, traditional nature.
Self-Monitoring
The OPPro dimension Persuasive –
Genuine was validated against
Snyder’s (1974) Self monitoring
scale. This scale measures a person’s
tendency to base their behaviour
either upon the demands of the situ-
ation or upon their own attitudes
and values.
Extraversion, Neuroticism and
Social Desirability
The Extraversion and Neuroticism
scales from Eysenck’s Personality
Inventory (EPI) and EPQR were
used to validate the OPPro scales
Gregarious –Reserved and Anxious
–Phlegmatic respectively. In addition
the brief lie scale which is included
in the EPI was correlated with the
OPPro Distortion scale.
Social Desirability
Given the brevity of the EPI and
EPQR lie scales, and hence their low
reliabilities, the OPPro Distortion
scale was also validated against a
longer and more reliable measure of
Social Desirability (SD). Thus The
OPPro Distortion scale was also vali-
dated against Strahan and Gerbasi’s
(1972) short homogeneous versions
of the Marlow-Crowne SD scale.
Machiavellianism
The OPPro scale Cynical –Trusting,
which attempts to measure the
Machiavellian personality, was vali-
dated against Christie and Geis’s
(1962) Machiavellianism scale.
Type A behaviour
The OPPro dimension Composed-
Contesting was validated against May

and Kline’s (1987) shortened form of
the Jenkins Activity Survey. This scale
measures Coronary Type A Behaviour
which consists of the following facets:
impatience, hard-driving/competi-
tiveness, speed/haste and unrepressed
expression of emotion.
Locus of Control
The OPPro dimension Optimistic
–Pessimistic was validated against
Levenson’s (1973) Internal-External
Locus of Control scale. This consists
of three sub-scales which measure
respectively the beliefs that: powerful
people control your life (Powerful
Others), that your life is controlled by
chance events (Chance) and that you
are in control of your life (Internal).
Direction of Interest
The OPPro dimension Abstract
–Concrete was validated against
Caine et al.’s (1982) Direction of
Interest Questionnaire (DIQ). This
questionnaire measures a person’s
‘thinking style’, assessing whether
the person has a practical, concrete
and realistic approach to problems or
an abstract, theoretical, imaginative
approach.
The first thing that inspection of
Table 23 below reveals is that all but
one of the criterion scales are highly
correlated with their respective
OPPro dimension. With the excep-
tion of the correlation between the
OPPro dimension Trusting and its
criterion scale, Machiavellianism, all
these correlations are in excess of
.58. This suggests that each of these
dimensions is measuring the
construct it was designed to measure.
The relatively low correlation
(r=.38) between the OPPro dimen-
sion Trusting-Cynical and its
criterion scale (Machiavellianism)
suggests that while this OPPro
dimension shares something in
common with its criterion scale, it is
measuring something different from
Machiavellianism. The modest corre-
lation between this dimension and
the Powerful Other subscale of the
Locus of Control scale (r= -.33) is,
however, consistent with the idea
fr
that this dimension is measuring a
general distrust of others, which is
based on the belief that others may
attempt to control you. Clearly more
work is required to fully validate this
scale. A final point of interest is that
only the chance subscale of
Levenson’s (1973) Locus of Control
scale was strongly correlated with the
OPPro dimension Optimistic
–Pessimistic (r=.59). While one may
not have expected the Powerful
Others subscale to be correlated with
this dimension, one would have
expected the Internality subscale to
be strongly correlated, if this OPPro
dimension were measuring a uni-
dimensional concept of Locus of
Control. Thus the present results
suggest that this OPPro dimension is
measuring the fatalistic belief that
one’s life is controlled by chance.

External Measure OPPro Dimension

Rigidity Flexible -.78 Concrete .60

Neuroticism Phlegmatic .60

Extraversion Gregarious .62

Self Monitoring Persuasive .59

Type A Contesting .58

Machiavellianism Trusting .38

External Locus of Control Pessimistic .59

EPI Lie Scale Distortion .51 (.56 EPQR)

MC (20) Distortion .68

Table 23: Correlations between OPPro Dimensions & External Criteria (n = 59)
fs CRITERION VALIDITY
In this section, we provide details of
number of studies in which the
OPPro has been used as part of a
pilot study on a sample of job
incumbents on whom performance
data was available. Whilst it is not
specifically recommended that
personality measures be used as
direct measures on future job perfor-
mance, these studies are intended to
reflect the manner in which person-
ality measures may shed light on
some of the personality determinants
of job performance.
CLERICAL PERFORMANCE
This investigation was carried out on
behalf of a highly successful financial
services group based in Hertfordshire.
The aim of the study was to examine
the extent to which the results of a
number of tests including OPPro were
related to measures of job perfor-
mance. A sample of 75 junior clerical
staff were tested and their perfor-
mance rated on criteria elicited from
the objective job analysis.
Correlations with OPPro dimensions
and performance criteria are
displayed in Table 24.
SERVICE ENGINEERS
A U.K. leading Crane & heavy lifting
equipment servicing company tested a
sample of 46 service engineers on the
OPPro GRT2 battery (see GRT2
Technical Manual). Their overall
performance was rated by supervisors.
FINANCIAL SERVICES:
A major financial services organisa-
tion administered the OPPro to new
recruits in a sales role at the begin-
ning of a residential training course
as a validation exercise. It was
hypothesised that as the selling
process relies on interpersonal char-
acteristics, there would be
correlations between sales perfor-
mance and OPPro dimensions. Sales
performance was separated into
issued and written business.
Issued business refers to the seller’s
actual earnings; policies that have
been bought by the customer. Written
business is a measure of what the
seller declares as potentially sold
before the business is issued; it is seen
as a measure of the seller’s potential
earnings. It was hypothesised that
poor sellers might have a high
written, but low issued business level
because they are selling to customers
who have no intention of taking up
policies, or they are not completing
their paperwork properly.
Gregariousness, Persuasiveness
and Conscientiousness registered
statistically significant positive corre-
lations with issued sales – overall,
15% of the variability in issued sales
was accounted for. Written sales
demonstrated fewer correlations, with
Persuasiveness being the only predic-
tor variable to achieve a modest
correlation. This supported the notion
that more Persuasive sales consultants
may be better at obtaining initial
interest, whilst Conscientiousness may
contribute to closure of the sale. This
could lend credence to the hypothesis
that poor sellers did not complete
paperwork properly.
PRINTERS
A major local newspaper group with
the largest number of local titles in the
United Kingdom sought to examine
whether tests could predict the job
performance of experienced printers.
A sample of 70 completed the OPPro
GRT2 battery as well as the MRT2
(Mechanical Reasoning Test). Each of
the group were assessed on a number
of performance criteria by supervisors.
In addition, test data were correlated
with the results of a job sample print
test which was administered at selec-
tion stage. Table 26 displayed the
results of this study.
 ft
Criterion OPPro Dimension

Overall Performance Assertive -.26 Conforming .18

Attitude towards work Contesting -.17

Communication Skills Flexible -.34 Persuasive -.32

Phlegmatic -.24 Pragmatic .22 Assertive .22

Attention to detail Assertive -.36

Table 24: Relationship between OPPro and Clerical Performance Criteria

OPPro/GRT Measure Overall Performance

Verbal .46
Conforming .30
Abstract .28
Numerical -.24
Contesting .15

Table 25: Correlations between OPPro & Service

Engineer Performance

Criterion OPPro Dimension

Overall Performance Abstract .36 Numerical .28 Verbal .26

Performance Job Sample MRT2 .42 Abstract .41 Verbal .33 Numerical .30
Pessimistic -.31 Contesting -.25

Initiative Abstract .56 Numerical .44 Verbal .40 MRT2 .39

Pessimistic -.32 Flexible .27 Contesting -.27 Phlegmatic .25

Time keeping Abstract -.32 Pessimistic .30 MRT2 -.29

Flexible -.25

Table 26: Correlations Between OPPro & Printer Performance Criteria (N=70)
gk
TELESALES STAFF
A sample of 30 existing telesales staff
from a motor insurance company
completed the OPPro GRT2 battery.
Their overall performance was rated
by their supervisors.
As can be seen the OPPro dimen-
sion flexible correlated fairly highly
with overall performance, suggesting
that the more detail-conscious staff
were highly rated by their supervi-
sors (see Table 27).
DEPARTMENT STORE SALES
STAFF
A major London department store
used the OPPro to investigate the
possibility of using personality
measures to help predict future
performance at the selection stage of
their recruitment process. A total of
231 of their sales staff completed the
OPPro and supervisor appraisal
ratings were used as an overall
performance measure. As can be
seen from Table 28 three of the
OPPro dimensions showed signifi-
cant correlations with the criterion
measure. Subsequent analysis
demonstrated that these three
dimensions identified 77% of the
good performers in the sample.
SALES CONSULTANTS IN THE
FURNISHING TRADE
A major furniture retail company
used the OPPro to help identify the
most important personality charac-
teristics for successful salespeople. A
total sample of 69 sales consultants
was used for the study.
As Table 29 shows there were a
few interesting correlations with the
performance criteria. Sales consul-
tants who were fairly practical, calm
and not too cynical tended to achieve
the most orders. Sales consultants
who achieved the highest monetary
sales performance tended to be more
extraverted and accommodating.
PREDICTION OF JOB
PERFORMANCE RATINGS FOR
CAR DEALERSHIP MANAGERS
A sample of 24 car dealership
managers were assessed by their
supervisors on a range of perfor-
mance criteria. The correlations
between their scores for these criteria
(averaged to form a single compe-
tency rating) and their OPPro
dimensions are shown in Table 30.
TRAINING APPLICANTS FOR
CAR COMPONENT TRAINING
COURSE
A large training company used the
OPPro + General Reasoning Test to
investigate the profiles of success-
ful/non-successful applicants for
training on a car components assem-
bly task. A sample of 150 applicants
was used for the study. It was found
that a number of OPPro dimensions
provided significant correlations with
successful applicants.
The important OPPro determiners
for successful applicants were flexi-
bility and an internal locus of control
both qualities which are probably
necessary if one is to successfully
learn a new skill. Successful appli-
cants also tended not to be too
phlegmatic nor prone to give socially
desirable answers (see Table 31).
WHOLESALE ELECTRICAL
GOODS RETAILER
A major electrical goods wholesaler
used the OPPro to identify predictors
of effective performance among
branch managers. A randomly
selected sample of 30 branch
managers were asked to complete the
OPPro during a training course. A
number of OPPro scales were related
to a rating of job performance made
by Regional Managers.
The more effective managers
tended to be quite practical and
pragmatic in their approach to
solving problems. They were also
more likely to be fairly anxious and
not as self-assured as their less effec-
tive colleagues, but were more
competitive. For this company, at
least, extremely calm, self-confident
managers did not seem to be particu-
larly effective sales managers (see
Table 32).
 gl
OPPro/GRT Measure Overall Performance OPPro Scale Overall Performance

Verbal .37 Trusting .17

Conforming -.30 Phlegmatic .17
Pessimistic -.23

Table 27: Correlations between OPPro/Reasoning & Table 28: Correlations between OPPro & Retail Staff
Telesales Performance Criteria Performance

Criterion OPPro Dimension

Net Orders Pragmatic .23 Phlegmatic .19 Trusting .17

Converting leads to sales Phlegmatic .26 Contesting -.25 Pessimistic -.22 Trusting -.16
Average value of sales Gregarious .29 Assertive -.16 Pragmatic -.13

Table 29: Correlations Between OPPro & Sales Consultant Performance Criteria

OPPro Predictor Correlation Coefficient

Accommodating – Assertive -.53
Cynical – Trusting .36
Emotional – Phlegmatic .34
Composed – Contesting -.56
Optimistic – Pessimistic -.34

Table 30: OPPro Correlations with Performance Ratings of

Car Dealership Managers

OPPro Scale Success

Flexible .29
Phlegmatic -.17 OPPro Scale Success
Pessimistic -.16
Conforming -.18 Pragmatic .45
Verbal .27 Phlegmatic -.28
Numerical .16 Contesting .23
Abstract .30 Pessimistic .28

Table 31: Correlations between OPPro & Successful Table 32: Correlations Between OPPro & Effective Sales
Applicant for Component Course Managers
 OPPro TEST QUALITY
gm ANALYSIS
Test quality analysis (TQA) is a quan-
titative assessment of the quality of
measurement of test items and scales.
Quality of measurement is defined in
the following analyses, with a single
quality index –TQI, being provided
by the equations in Barrett, Kline,
Paltiel, and Eysenck (1993).
ITEM COMPLEXITY
For each scale, the items which are
not part of that scale are correlated
with the scale score. The number of
items correlating higher than a given
bound value are noted. If more than
5 such items correlate at this level,
they are treated as a scale and the
correlation between the target scale
score and the new scale score is
computed, as is the new internal
consistency coefficient. This analysis
highlights items which are signifi-
cantly related to non-keyed scales. It
is a mandatory feature of the OPPro
that no item correlates higher than
the mean item-total correlation
(ITC) for any non-keyed scale. This
is generally a more restrictive analy-
sis than the usual constraint of every
item correlating higher with its own
scale score than on any other scale
score. For example, given an item
correlates 0.5 with its own scale
score and 0.43 with another non-
keyed scale, the conventional
analysis would accept this item.
However, if the mean ITC for the
non-keyed scale is 0.40, this item
would be flagged accordingly in the
analysis. This analysis is sensitive to
the size of the specified bound value
(mean ITC or some other value) but
insensitive to an item that may
correlate 0.2 with its own scale and
0.3 with another scale. The next
analysis addresses this situation.
SIGNAL-TO-NOISE RATIO OF
ITEMS
The normalised ratio of keyed scale
ITC (the ITC for an item on its spec-
ified scale) to the average non-keyed
scale ITCs reduced in size by a
correction factor that takes into
account the quantity of this item’s
non-keyed ITCs that are two-thirds
greater than the mean ITC on every
non-keyed scale. This ratio is
computed for each item in the test. It
thus provides a highly constrained
parameter that takes into account
the size of the non-keyed scale ITCs
for an item. Essentially it indexes the
capacity of an item to provide a
measure which is unique to a partic-
ular scale. A value of 1 indicates an
item with no measurement noise or
cross-talk. A value of 0 indicates an
item that is incapable of making a
measure that is not significantly
confounded by associations with
other scale scores in the test.
SCALE (TEST) QUALITY INDEX
(TQI)
This parameter indexes the measure-
ment quality of a scale of items as a
whole, taking into account the scale-
item complexity, signal to noise ratio
of the scale, and the disparity of
mean ITCs below the mean ITC
within a scale. This latter correction
guards against the number of items
in a scale that might have low ITCs,
but where the mean ITC is biased
upwards by the greater number of
higher ITCs in the scale. For
example, in a scale with 10 items,
the first 5 items have ITCs of 0.5 the
next 3 have ITCs of 0.42 and the last
2 items have an ITC of 0.15. The
mean ITC for that scale is 0.41
which might otherwise appear to

meet accepted standards and
obscures two ITCs of marginal
conceptual significance. The correc-
tion applied is sensitive to the
quantitative level of disparity from
the mean scale ITC value.
The global TQI varies between 0
and 1, a value of 0 indicating no test
quality of measurement and a value
of 1 denoting perfect measurement.
Values between 0.6 and 0.8 indicate
moderate to good measurement
quality with values above 0.8 indi-
cating excellent measurement
characteristics.
MEASUREMENT COMPLEXITY
A measure of the measurement
complexity or unwanted measure-
ment noise in a test can also be
made, using the results from signal
to noise ratio analyses noted above.
The Test Complexity Index (TCI) is
computed by summing the number
of items with complexity ratios less
than 0.5 (greater than the measure-
ment noise of an item) and dividing
this quantity by the total number of
items in the test. A value of 0%
would indicate no measurement
complexity or crosstalk at all, a value
of 100% indicates that no item in the
test is capable of making a measure
of a trait that is not confounded by
its simultaneous measurement of
several other trait characteristics.
TCIs greater than about 20% indi-
cate low factorial simplicity (Kaiser
1974) and poor rotational simple
structure and factorial signal-to-
noise ratios (Barrett et al, 1996).
Table 33 provides the Test Quality
Indices (TQI) and Test Complexity
Indices (TCI) for the OPPro ques-
tionnaire, in comparison with those
computed over the Kline & Lapham
PPQ, Saville & Holdsworth Concept
5.2, Eysenck’s Personality
Questionnaire –Revised (EPQR ) and
I7 scales, Gordon’s Survey of
Interpersonal Values (normative
form) and two samples of the Sixteen
Personality Factor Questionnaire
(16PF) form A. The OPQ sample
was provided by 621 mixed sex,
applicant respondents aged between
10 and 50. The 16PF data was
provided by a sample of 1898 mixed
sex applicants and a second sample
of 922 mixed sex graduate manager-
ial applicants.
As can be seen from this table, the
OPPro has a TQI value of 0.71, indi-
cating a good measurement quality.
Its complexity is about 16% –this
compares very favourably with an
TQI
SHL OPQ Concept 5.2 0.60
Psytech’s OPPro 0.71
Kline & Lapham PPQ 0.64
Eysenck EPQR 0.79
Eysenck I7 0.80
Gordon SIV 0.73
Cattell 16PF (N=1898) 0.12
Cattell 16PF (N=922) 0.08
Table 33: TQI’s & TCI’s for a Number of Different Tests
gn
OPQ TQI of 0.60 & TCI of 27.8%.
As Barrett et al have indicated, this is
due to extreme overlap between
some of the OPQ scales. Of signifi-
cance in this table is the
extraordinarily low parameter values
for the 16PF. These values indicate
that the 16PF is not capable of
discrete measurement across many of
its scales. That is, most of the items
in the test are not only contributing
to their own scale measures but also
to many others in the same test, thus
making it impossible to ascertain
exactly which trait is being indexed
by any one item.
TCI(%)
27.84
15.98
17.65
5.00
0.00
15.56
75.84
69.01
go
5
ADMINISTRATION
INSTRUCTIONS
BEFORE STARTING THE QUESTIONNAIRE
Put candidates at their ease by giving information about yourself, the purpose
of the questionnaire, the timetable for the day, if this is part of a wider assess-
ment programme, and how the results will be used and who will have access
to them. Ensure that you and other administrators have switched off mobile
phones etc.

The instructions below should be read out verbatim and the same script
should be followed each time the OPPro is administered to one or more candi-
dates. Instructions for the administrator are printed in ordinary type.
Instructions designed to be read aloud to candidates incorporate a grey
shaded background, italics and speech marks.

If this is the first or only questionnaire being administered, give an introduc-

tion as per or similar to the following example:

“From now on, please do not talk among yourselves, but

ask me if anything is not clear. Please ensure that any
mobile telephones, pagers or other potential distractions are
switched off completely. We shall be doing the
Occupational Personality Profile which has no time limit,
however most people take about 15 minutes. During the
test I shall be checking to make sure you are not making
any accidental mistakes when filling in the answer sheet. I
will not be checking your responses.”

WARNING: It is most important that answer sheets do not go astray. They

should be counted out at the beginning of the test and counted in again at the
end.
gq
Continue by using the instructions EXACTLY as given. Say:

DISTRIBUTE THE ANSWER SHEETS

Then ask:

“Has everyone got two sharp pencils, an eraser, some rough

paper and an answer sheet.”

Rectify any omissions, then say:

“Print your surname, first name and title clearly on the line
provided, followed by your age and sex. Please insert
today’s date which is [ ] on the ‘Comments’ line”

Walk around the room to check that the instructions are being followed.

WARNING: It is vitally important that test booklets do not go astray. They

should be counted out at the beginning of the session and counted in again at
the end.

DISTRIBUTE THE BOOKLETS WITH THE INSTRUCTION:

“Please do not open the booklet until instructed.”

Remembering to read slowly and clearly, go to the front of the group and say:

“Please open the booklet and follow the instructions for this
test as I read them aloud.” (Pause to allow booklets to be
opened).

This is a questionnaire concerning your interests, prefer-

ences and feelings about a range of things.

You are asked to rate yourself on a scale from 1 to 5 on

each question. When you have chosen the answer appro-
priate for YOU, record this by blackening the
corresponding box on the answer sheet.

For example:

Ratings:

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Agree In Disagree Strongly
Agree between Disagree

1. I like to watch the news on TV.

 gr
If you strongly agreed with this statement, you would fully
blacken box 1 against question 1 on your answer sheet.”

Check for understanding of the instructions so far, then say:

“When answering the questions, please remember the

following:

1. Do not spend too much time pondering over the answer

to each question. The information given in a question
may not be as full as you would wish, but answer as
best you can.

2. Please try to avoid the middle (In between) answer

wherever possible.

3. Be as honest and truthful as you can. Don’t give an

answer just because it seems to be the right thing to say.

4. Make sure you answer every question, even those which

do not seem to apply to you.

5. If you wish to change an answer, please erase it and

insert your new answer.”

Then say very clearly:

“Is everybody clear about how to do this test?”

Deal with any questions appropriately, then say:

“Please turn over the page and begin”

Answer only questions relating to procedure at this stage, but enter in the
Administrator’s Test Record any other problems which occur. Walk around
the room at appropriate intervals to check for potential problems. When
everybody has completed the questionnaire:

COLLECT ANSWER SHEETS & TEST BOOKLETS, ENSURING THAT

ALL MATERIALS ARE RETURNED (COUNT BOOKLETS & ANSWER
SHEETS)

Then say:

“Thank you for completing the Occupational Personality

Profile.”
gs
5
REFERENCES
Adorno, T.W., Frenkel-Brunswick,
E., Levinson, D.J. & Sanford, R.N.
(1950). The Authoritarian
Personality. New York: Harper &
Row
Barrett P., Kline P., Paltiel L. &
Eysenck H.J. (1996) An evaluation
of the psychometric properties of the
Concept 5.2 Occupational
Personality Questionnaire, Journal
of Occupational & Organisational
Psychology, 69, 1-19.
Belbin, R.M. (1984). Management
Teams: Why they succeed or Fail.
Heineman, London.
Bondorowicz, S (1992) GeneSys®
Assessment & Profiling System
Manual. Bedfordshire: Psytech
International Ltd.
Budd, R. J. (1992) The OIP
Technical Manual. Bedfordshire:
Psytech International Ltd.
Budd, R. J. (1992) 15FQ Technical
Manual. Bedfordshire: Psytech
International Ltd.
Budd R. (1991) The OPPro
Technical Manual. Bedfordshire:
Psytech International Ltd.
Christie, R., and Geis, F.L. (1970).
Studies in Machiavellianism. New
York: Academic Press
Cronbach, L.J. (1951). Coefficient
alpha and the internal structure of
tests. Psychometrica, 16, 297-334
Crowne, D.P. and Marlow, D.
(1964). The approval motive. New
York: Wiley
Eysenck, H.J. and Eysenck, S.B.G.
(1969). Personality structure and
measurement. London:RKP.
Eysenck, H.J. and Eysenck, S.B.G.
(1992). Manual to the Eysenck
Personality Questionnaire and
I7scales. London:RKP.
Gordon, L.V. (1985) Manual for the
Survey of Interpersonal Values.
Henley, UK: Science Research
Associates.
hk
Gough, H.G., and Sanford, R.N.
(1952). Rigidity as a psychological
variable. Unpublished manuscript.
University of California, Institute of
Personality Assessment Research.
Guilford, J.P. (1954). Psychometric
methods (2nd ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Jenkins, C.D. (1971). Psychological
and social precursors of coronary
disease. New England Journal of
Medicine, 284, 244-255.
Jung, C.G. (1921). Psychological
Types, Vol. 6, the collected works of
C.G. Jung. London: RKP
Kline, P. (1968). An experimental
study of the anal character.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Manchester.
Kline, P. and Lapham S. (1991) The
Professional Personality
Questionnaire. London:
Psychometric Systems Ltd.
Levenson, H. (1973).
Multidimensional Locus of Control in
Psychiatric Patients. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
41, 397-404
Maslow, A.H. (1970). Motivation
and personality. New York: Harper
& Row.
May, J. and Kline, P. (1987).
Extraversion, neuroticism, obsession-
ality and the Type A behaviour
pattern. British Journal of Medical
Psychology, 60, 253-259.
Rotter, J.B. (1966). Generalised
expectancies for internal versus
external control of reinforcement.
Psychological Monographs, 80,
whole issue.
Saville, P. and Blinkhorn S. (1981).
Reliability, Homogeneity & The
Construct Validity of Cattell’s 16PF.
Person. individ. Diff, 2. 325-333
Saville, P. Holdsworth, R., Nyfield,
G. Cramp, L. and Mabey, W. (1984)
Occupational Personality
Questionnaires Manual. London:
Saville & Holdsworth Ltd.
Snyder, M. (1974). Self Monitoring
of Expressive Behaviour. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology,
30, 526-537
Snyder, M. (1979). Self Monitoring
Processes. In L. Berkowitz (ed.)
Advances in experimental social
psychology. New York: Academic
Press
Strahan R. and Gerbasi K. (1972).
Short, Homogeneous Versions of the
Crowne-Marlow Social Desirability
Scale. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 28, 191-193.